NHT 3.3 and EAD Signature
SWWang
Yamaha DSP-A3090 and NHT VT2/VS2 based system to NHT 3.3 and EAD Signature that
can double as a high end audio system.
System Set-up
* NHT 3.3 (L,R), AudioCenter 1 (Center), VT-2 (moved to the rear as full range
Surround speakers)
* Enlightened Audio Designs' TheaterMaster Signature digital pre-processor (DD,
DTS, HDCD, MPEG2)
* Parasound HCA-1500A 2 channel Power Amplifier (drives high frequency L, R
main)
* Parasound HCA-2003A 3 channel Power Amplifier (drives Center, Rear L, Rear R)
* NHT 3.3 bi-amped via two NHT SA-3 Power Amplifiers driving the woofers
* LFE fed through a NHT SW3P Powered Subwoofer
* Five MIT Terminator 2 speaker cables for L, R, C, and Sub Woofers
* UltraLink performance interconnect cables for all signal paths in/out of the
EAD Signature
* Parasound SCAMP/Signature controlled amplifier power control
* SONY DVP-S7000 DVD player
* Yamaha CDV-W901 LD player, Yamaha TX-950 tuner
* B&K DT1 AC3 RF demodulator/digital selector
* Parasound P/PH-100 phono pre-amp
* SONY SLV-980HF StarSight HI-FI VHS VCR
* SONY DSS AD2 system with optical digital out
* SONY KP-61XBR48 rear projection TV (ISF calibrated)
Upgrade experience and verification of some conventional "audio wisdom":
1) Speakers make the most difference sonically in a system. The NHT 3.3 is
great and a significant step up from the VT2.
2) NHT 3.3 has strong dependency on room placement. My 3.3 is clear back
against the front wall for the maximum bass coupling. It may still not be in
the optimal position for music because I have a wide RPTV and racks in between,
but I do hear a clear improvement in imaging and sound stage. It is very
accurate and revealing of the weak components in the audio signal path. I
upgraded the speakers first, then I wanted more power to drive them, and then I
wanted a better pre-amps... so it goes.
3) Bi-amping makes a difference due to added flexibility to control the bass
(i.e. volume control), the SA3 also has a high and low pass filter where you
can save the amps and the speaker crossover to work on only the needed
frequency bandwidth. Although I must say that bi-amping is not a must because
the 3.3 performs very well without bi-amping when driven directly from the
Parasound 1500A. I simply enjoy louder and tight bass that the bi-amped 3.3 is
capable of.
4) NHT 3.3 is excellent as a HT speaker system, although AudioCenter 1 is
excellent, like others I do wish NHT offered a center speaker using the upper
section of the 3.3.
5) New speaker system does require "break in" period because I found the
speaker
sounded even better after a month or so of playing, just like the manual said.
6) The pre-amp/surround processor makes the second most difference sonically in
the system. The Yamaha A3090 was excellent but the EAD does sound better. The
NHT 3.3 and Parasound combination was on the bright side when fed through the
3090A. The EAD "removed" the hard edge and made the high frequency more
musical. I don't want to sound like the "golden ears". The bottom line is
that this combination sounds better than before and I found I could listen at
loud levels for long periods of time without fatiguing.
7) Separate components are better than integrated amps and receivers because of
the flexibility and better sonic performance. It can cost more and did in my
case for sure.
8) Separate components are more prone to hum (ground loop) problems. I had a
ground loop hum when I hooked up the EAD first. It was solved after a lot of
trial and error and moving the equipment around so I can get them to connect to
the same wall outlet. The A3090 didn't have that problem.
9) Separate components are not as convenient as integrated amps or receivers.
Originally I was considering the EAD Ovation model but found out it didn't have
enough analog inputs to accommodate my existing analog sources (tuner, phono,
VHS, LD, etc.). The SONY KP-61XBR48 has 5 video input switching capability
anyway so I opted for the Signature and used the RPTV to do the video
switching. That was OK since I wanted the video signal to feed directly into
the TV without external switching anyway. The Signature was a lot more
expensive than the Ovation, it does have better DACs and probably contributed
more to the sonic performance. I can't tell you whether it sounds better than
the Ovation. Because of going separate components I had to buy the phono
pre-amp and the AC3 RF demodulator. Neither would be necessary with the A3090.
There is a lot to be appreciated with an integrated unit like the Yamaha A3090
or the new A-1.
10) I did try out couple of DTS audio CDs and a DTS LD. On first brush DTS
sounds good, it is different than DD but I wouldn't say it is clearly better or
worse. Perhaps I'll do another post after living with the EAD for a
whilelonger.
Scott Wang
s...@baynetworks.com
(Do not send mail to AOL)
yairs
for speaker manufacturers & dealers.
This way when someone buys a 5k speaker, brings it home
and then finds out the sound is terrible-
well now, there's a simple solution. Wait a month and it will improve.
Ofcourse, regardless of objective improvement after a month you will
probably
convince yourself that the sound ain't so bad. (cognitive disonance)
If "break in" is that important, why can't hi-end speaker manufacturers
do it themselves before the sell.
greg singh
will allow an in-home evaluation with a broken-in pair of speakers before
you buy. Do you really think there are tons of people who buy $5000
speakers and then feel ripped-off afterwards? Get real.
yairs <ya...@yahoo.com> wrote in article <35C7212A...@yahoo.com>...
> Seems to me that speaker "break in" is a very convenient break
> for speaker manufacturers & dealers.
> This way when someone buys a 5k speaker, brings it home
> and then finds out the sound is terrible-
> well now, there's a simple solution. Wait a month and it will improve.
>
> Ofcourse, regardless of objective improvement after a month you will
> probably
> convince yourself that the sound ain't so bad. (cognitive disonance)
>
> If "break in" is that important, why can't hi-end speaker manufacturers
> do it themselves before the sell.
>
>
> on SWWang wrote:
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
>
> There sure is a lot of cowardice regarding audio dealers.
Please explain what you mean by this?
> Any good dealer will allow an in-home evaluation with a broken-in
> pair of speakers before you buy.
Doesn't this conflict with your first statement/
> Do you really think there are tons of people who buy $5000
> speakers and then feel ripped-off afterwards? Get real.
Obviously there are very few. I think virtually everyone does a lot of
homework when dropping $500 large ones on speakers.
Zip
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://www.sunshinestereo.com
Tel: 305-757-9358 Fax: 305-757-1367
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores FL 33138
PASS Labs NOVA Audio EAD Miranda CODA Audible Illusions CEC
Camelot Technology Audio Logic Parasound Kinergetics Cabasse
Chiro Benz Micro Gallo Acoustics Dunlavy Audio NEAR NHT Jadis
Niles Zenith INTEQ Crystal Vision Straightwire Mordaunt Short ESP
Rega Vans Evers Cleanlines Monster Cable ENTECH Arcane Audio
Sunshine Stereo encourages all audiophiles to support their local
dealers. If you do not have a local dealer, we will gladly assist
you with all your audio and video needs! *** ENJOY THE MUSIC! ***
greg singh
people were getting screwed by being told to hold on to their speakers till
they were finished breaking in (the Tom Notsaine philosophy). I said this
is an expression of cowardice. What is there to not understand?
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc) <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote in
article <35C739...@sunshinestereo.com>...
Howard Ferstler
> There sure is a lot of cowardice regarding audio dealers. Any good dealer
> will allow an in-home evaluation with a broken-in pair of speakers before
> you buy. Do you really think there are tons of people who buy $5000
> speakers and then feel ripped-off afterwards? Get real.
>
> yairs <ya...@yahoo.com> wrote in article <35C7212A...@yahoo.com>...
> > Seems to me that speaker "break in" is a very convenient break
> > for speaker manufacturers & dealers.
> > This way when someone buys a 5k speaker, brings it home
> > and then finds out the sound is terrible-
> > well now, there's a simple solution. Wait a month and it will improve.
> >
> > Ofcourse, regardless of objective improvement after a month you will
> > probably
> > convince yourself that the sound ain't so bad. (cognitive disonance)
> >
> > If "break in" is that important, why can't hi-end speaker manufacturers
> > do it themselves before the sell.
>
> > on SWWang wrote:
> > > 5) New speaker system does require "break in" period because I found
> the
> > > speaker
> > > sounded even better after a month or so of playing, just like the
> manual said.
I would like to know what factors are involved in a speaker 'break in," and
what calls a halt to the operation of those facors, once the break in is
completed.
Howard Ferstler
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
> I would like to know what factors are involved in a speaker 'break in," and
> what calls a halt to the operation of those facors, once the break in is
> completed.
>
> Howard Ferstler
Howard:
Stretching of cone surround materials, mylar (in the case of maggies &
stats) and the forming of caps. You are welcome to disgree, but there
are more than one opinion on this.
Cheers
UPTOWN AUDIO
SOME loudspeakers sound like crap. Driver materials stretch and become more
flexable after extended operation allowing them to be more compliant during
use. This generally can be noticed as an increase in speed, dynamic range
and the reproduction of lower frequencies. If, on the other hand, a dealer
tells you that cables need to be burned-in; I would be suspicious. He may be
more than ignorant.
- Bill
yairs wrote in message <35C7212A...@yahoo.com>...
>Seems to me that speaker "break in" is a very convenient break
>for speaker manufacturers & dealers.
>This way when someone buys a 5k speaker, brings it home
>and then finds out the sound is terrible-
>well now, there's a simple solution. Wait a month and it will improve.
>
>Ofcourse, regardless of objective improvement after a month you will
>probably
>convince yourself that the sound ain't so bad. (cognitive disonance)
>
>If "break in" is that important, why can't hi-end speaker manufacturers
>do it themselves before the sell.
>
>
>on SWWang wrote:
Arny Krüger
yairs wrote in message <35C7212A...@yahoo.com>...
>Seems to me that speaker "break in" is a very convenient
break
>for speaker manufacturers & dealers.
I see it as a pshychologial antidote for another very real
psychological effect - buyer's remorse.
>This way when someone buys a 5k speaker, brings it home
>and then finds out the sound is terrible- well now,
there's a simple solution.
>Wait a month and it will improve.
It probably will, but the major changes will have taken
place in the buyer's head, not the speaker itself.
>Ofcourse, regardless of objective improvement after a month
you will
>probably convince yourself that the sound ain't so bad.
(cognitive disonance)
Speaker's generally sound different. Also, it can take a
while to figure out placement, and other system adjustments,
to optimize the use of the speaker.
>If "break in" is that important, why can't hi-end speaker
manufacturers
>do it themselves before the sell.
Because they can't afford to send a shrink to every
prospective customer's house? ;-)
Howard Ferstler
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > I would like to know what factors are involved in a speaker 'break in," and
> > what calls a halt to the operation of those facors, once the break in is
> > completed.
> >
> > Howard Ferstler
> Howard:
> Stretching of cone surround materials, mylar (in the case of maggies &
> stats) and the forming of caps. You are welcome to disgree, but there
> are more than one opinion on this.
> Cheers
> Zip
I agree that it is possible, at least with certain designs or certain models.
This would mean that a break in is kind of determined by how loud a system is
played, and how long it is played that loud. Consequently, someone who never
plays their speakers loud would never fully "break-in" their systems, because
they would not "stretch" the rubber products adequately. On the other hand,
someone who plays their speakers a tad too loud might end up with permanent,
overstretch-caused distortion of some kind.
Also, while a manufacturer could guarantee that a given speaker measured and
sounded up to certain standards when it went out the door, how could they be
sure that any, ultimate, post-break-in standards could be met? After all,
while they could measure the out-the-door performance, they could not be sure
that every rubber or plastic component would "stretch" in a proper manner,due
to quality-control inconsistencies. Thus, it seems to me that speakers that
must be broken in will have a great deal of variability in their ultimate
performance. Sounds like a risky purchase to me.
Indeed, it would seem best for a system to be built in such a way that the
rubber or plastic components would never be stressed enough to change
appreciably at all. In other words, the system would be up to spec out of the
box, and could not be stressed enough with normal use to make it alter its
behavior. I would be a bit nervous about owning a system that was not in a
position to sound at its best until is was "stretched" enough to break in.
I know that measurements are not popular in some circles, but certainly
measurements could show the results of at least some break in changes. There
would be a change in frequency response, resonance frequencies, etc. Has
anyone ever done measurements of that kind, and hopefully published the
results?
Of course, we are just discussing speakers. We still have the controversy
over breaking in electronic components, and of course, wire and cable.
Howard Ferstler
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
greg singh
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
Like I said, there is a lot of cowardice in the way "people" regard audio
dealers...
Dave
Lots of people have had negative experiences in dealing with high-end dealers.
I think it is up to the dealers to fix their own image problem.
George M. Middius
11011101 11-101-11" ;-)
'Borg 2: "10111 11000110101101, 1101011. ;-)
110101101 101, 11110, 00-00-101." ;-)
"yairs" delivers BorgSmugSnot on demand.
>>Seems to me that speaker "break in" is a very convenient break
>>for speaker manufacturers & dealers.
The Sausage looms.
>I see it as a pshychologial antidote for another very real
>psychological effect - buyer's remorse.
How much is too much? Just ask a 'borg....
>>This way when someone buys a 5k speaker, brings it home
>>and then finds out the sound is terrible- well now, there's a
>>simple solution. Wait a month and it will improve.
The Master-Baiter egests the *required* placebo
placebo.
>It probably will, but the major changes will have taken
>place in the buyer's head, not the speaker itself.
The "yairs" 'borg tosses out some more ABXism
dogma.
>>Ofcourse, regardless of objective improvement after a
>>month you will probably convince yourself that the
>>sound ain't so bad. (cognitive disonance)
Long-Sausage mangles English while it pats itself
on the back.
>Speaker's generally sound different. Also, it can take a
>while to figure out placement, and other system adjustments,
>to optimize the use of the speaker.
More whining from the self-sufficient anti-human:
>>If "break in" is that important, why can't hi-end speaker
>>manufacturers do it themselves before the sell.
Last of None delivers a cyborg's idea of a joke.
>Because they can't afford to send a shrink to every
>prospective customer's house?
Sad.
>;-)™
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
SJMARCY
dealers.
I think it is up to the dealers to fix their own image problem.>>
Good point. Just think of the damage to the high end's image Zip is
responsible for each day. Maybe all the dealers should chip in and do
something about it,
Stan
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
Stan stan the flim flam man, I have a wonderful business. You should
not equate my answering idiots like you on the net with our dealings
with real customers in the real world.
Maybe you should chip in and get yourself a life and a clue first ;-)
Zip
SJMARCY
day.>
<Stan stan the flim flam man, I have a wonderful business. You should
not equate my answering idiots like you on the net with our dealings
with real customers in the real world.
Maybe you should chip in and get yourself a life and a clue first ;-)
Zip>
See what I mean? Why would anyone want to deal with this guy?
Stan
Howard Ferstler
The sad thing is the sub-literate nature of this reply. I have followed
some of the comments of Mr. Middius and his ilk on the rao network for
some time, and it is interesting to see how often they kind of hang
around technically oriented, generally civil give-and-take, or how-to
discussions dealing with audio, and interject snide, unrelated remarks,
much the same way assorted flying bugs hang around people having a
picnic.
Howard Ferstler
Stewart Pinkerton
>Lots of people have had negative experiences in dealing with high-end dealers.
>I think it is up to the dealers to fix their own image problem.
Could you imagine walking into whatever store is dumb enough to employ
Singh? Talking of cowardice, Singh, just where *do* you work?
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
>
> Da...@nobody.com (Dave) writes:
>
> >On Wed, 05 Aug 1998 07:48:37 -0500, g...@wwa.com (greg singh) wrote:
> >
> >>Like I said, there is a lot of cowardice in the way "people" regard audio
> >>dealers...
> >
> >Lots of people have had negative experiences in dealing with high-end dealers.
> >I think it is up to the dealers to fix their own image problem.
>
> Could you imagine walking into whatever store is dumb enough to employ
> Singh? Talking of cowardice, Singh, just where *do* you work?
What makes you any better than him, Stewart?
He likes music. He is passionate about his hobby. He is honest. Are
these qualities foreign to you?
Zip
greg singh
sjm...@aol.com (SJMARCY) wrote:
You know, Stan, you are right. Why would anyone want to deal with Zip?
Why would anyone want to deal with me, either? Why not just be another
internet weasel, and post periodic notes asking, "Where can I get the best
deal on speaker X?" It defies logic why people rag on independent dealers
like they do--as if they can garner legitimate knowledge from the typical
employees of Radio Shack, Best Buy, and Circuit City. The audio buying
experience hasn't gotten so generic it is not funny. I have been hanging
out in hi-fi stores since I was fifteen, and guess what? It's fun! People
who like music and like hi-fi are generally pretty cool. Sure, I've met
some losers, but really only lately, as certain types of stores take more
pride in smarminess than product knowledge. But I think any consumer can
smell this pretense a mile away--to wit, the recent thread about Sound by
Singer. And you know what? I'm still waiting for someone to post a
tearful testimonial about how they got screwed royally by being told to
wait for their speakers to break-in. What's next, somebody complaining
because a dealer suggest they try a Bedini clarifier? It is almost as if
the thing people are really afraid of is having to think for themselves.
If you buy a Pioneer/Bose system from Best Buy not too much is necessary in
the way of independent thought. But bring the hundreds of smaller brands
into the picture and how do you decide? Not by having to develop an
opinion, for heaven's sake! I think if people saw the kind of bending over
backwards independent dealers do to earn business they would be singing a
different tune.
greg singh
Mr. Ferstler! Are telling me you have absolutely no comment on the
smarminess and shittiness of Arny Kroonger's remarks?
George M. Middius
>> The sad thing is the sub-literate nature of this reply.
>Mr. Ferstler! Are telling me you have absolutely no comment on the
>smarminess and shittiness of Arny Kroonger's remarks?
Uncle Fester has revealed his eminent qualifications
for being a Professional Assistant Librarian. He is
an accomplished judge of what is literary and what
is subliterary. My remarks have been adjudged
"subliterary," and Howie does not like them, no
sirree. Whereas the noble and unsanctimonious
Krooborg, whom Howie likes very very much, is
admirable and scientific and, truly, literary.
Howie has also opined that Roy Briggs is a
talentless hack, that individuals who indulge in
"amateur comedy" are impediments to Howie's
attainment of Full and Flowing Fatuosity, and that
more speakers are better, without limit.
Howie's sagacity is a beacon to all of the normals
-- or, as Arnold Long-Sausage calls us, "the
unwashed masses." For you to ask Uncle Fester to
impugn the Holy and Dignified remarks of Last of
None, the Eminent RAO Cyborg and Snotmeister, is
equivalent to asking Lamb Chop to spit on Shari
Lewis's grave.
NigelBD
>do it themselves before the sell.
It's not a myth, but it may not be all that significant. The Thiel-Small
parameters can change after being used, this is due to flexing of the surrounds
on conventional drivers.
Manufacturers such as JBL rate their drivers after some use.
Since time = money, I'd rather the speaker manufacturers NOT break in the
speakers and charge us for it.
Regards,
Nigel
Howard Ferstler
g...@wwa.com (greg singh) wrote:
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > The sad thing is the sub-literate nature of this reply. I have followed
> > some of the comments of Mr. Middius and his ilk on the rao network for
> > some time, and it is interesting to see how often they kind of hang
> > around technically oriented, generally civil give-and-take, or how-to
> > discussions dealing with audio, and interject snide, unrelated remarks,
> > much the same way assorted flying bugs hang around people having a
> > picnic.
> Mr. Ferstler! Are telling me you have absolutely no comment on the
> smarminess and shittiness of Arny Kroonger's remarks?
Well, Mr. Krueger believes in sometimes fighting fire with fire. Given the
insults that are heaped on an individual who obviously has remarkable
technical talents, I find his behavior positively restrained at times. If
you guys would stop dumping on him and listen to his often insightful
replies, you might actually learn something.
Your near paranoia concerning technical issues and toward people who you feel
are representative of the "guys in white coats" (you make the latter sound
like interns at a mental institution, rather than engineers), is something
that I simply cannot understand. A technically oriented individual gives a
straight answer to a question, and you people immediately go into a rant
about "techno-babble," as if the information is somehow detrimental to the
reproduction of sound and the enjoyment of music.
So, you suddenly become offended when Mr. Krueger reaches his limit and
counterpunches with an insult or two of his own. Why are you surprised and
offended by something your brought on yourselves?
Howard Ferstler
Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com (George M. Middius) wrote:
> Uncle Fester has revealed his eminent qualifications
> for being a Professional Assistant Librarian. He is
> an accomplished judge of what is literary and what
> is subliterary. My remarks have been adjudged
> "subliterary," and Howie does not like them, no
> sirree. Whereas the noble and unsanctimonious
> Krooborg, whom Howie likes very very much, is
> admirable and scientific and, truly, literary.
>
> Howie has also opined that Roy Briggs is a
> talentless hack, that individuals who indulge in
> "amateur comedy" are impediments to Howie's
> attainment of Full and Flowing Fatuosity, and that
> more speakers are better, without limit.
>
> Howie's sagacity is a beacon to all of the normals
> -- or, as Arnold Long-Sausage calls us, "the
> unwashed masses." For you to ask Uncle Fester to
> impugn the Holy and Dignified remarks of Last of
> None, the Eminent RAO Cyborg and Snotmeister, is
> equivalent to asking Lamb Chop to spit on Shari
> Lewis's grave.
Well, dispite his occasional counterpunches to you and yours, Mr. Krueger
certainly has the ability to deliver scientific explanations when tastefully
called for by questioning individuals. If you would desist from fearing
everything technical, and heaping abuse right and left, you might find him to
be rather informative.
The potentially talentless Mr. Middius and Mr. Briggs notwithstanding
("potentially," because we have yet to find out much about what they think of
assorted audio-oiented subjects; perhaps they are actually quite
knowledgeable), I think the original subject of this thread involved breaking
in speakers. Maybe we would all do better if we stuck to the subject at hand.
What about speaker break in, Mr. Middius. Any opinions on the subject?
PS: I am not a librarian, assistant or otherwise. Also, while more speakers
are not necessarily better, more channels certainly are.
trotsky
Howard Ferstler <fers...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<6qcava$efb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Mr. Ferstler! You are not thinking clearly--you are acting like a cyborg.
If you were to go back and re-read this thread, you would see nothing was
said directly to Mr. Kroonger, but that he went out of his way to be
insulting to audio retailers. However, in Howie's world what is good for
the goose isn't good for the gander.
trotsky
Howard Ferstler <fers...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<6qcbkh$f5h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
I agree, Howard. I have an RCA DSS unit. What have you got?
George M. Middius
>The potentially talentless Mr. Middius and Mr. Briggs notwithstanding
In standard English, Howie just accused Roy and me
of having talent and also having the potential to
lose it. Very kind. Thank you, Howie.
>("potentially," because we have yet to find out much about what
>they think of assorted audio-oiented subjects; perhaps they are
>actually quite knowledgeable),
Oh, I see. Howie's definition of talent extends to
the quantity of audio knowledge a normal
possesses. How weird.
>What about speaker break in, Mr. Middius. Any opinions on the subject?
What is the composition of the plate in your head?
When a human needs skull reconstruction, the human
doctors give him a steel plate. In your case, I'm
sure the speaker would break your head in rather
easily.
>PS: I am not a librarian, assistant or otherwise.
Why do you lie, Howie?
>Also, while more speakers
>are not necessarily better, more channels certainly are.
Please explain how you can add channels to a
system without adding speakers. No peeking at the
reference shelf, either.
Howard Ferstler
"trotsky" <g...@wwa.com> wrote:
> Mr. Ferstler! You are not thinking clearly--you are acting like a cyborg.
> If you were to go back and re-read this thread, you would see nothing was
> said directly to Mr. Kroonger, but that he went out of his way to be
> insulting to audio retailers. However, in Howie's world what is good for
> the goose isn't good for the gander.
I can assure you that I am thinking very clearly.
Those guys have been sniping at Mr. Krueger off and off for months. Posts
will often be submitted by them in response to previous posts by other
individuals who are asking questions about subjects that have absolutely no
relation to anything he has said for some time, and the disrupters will still
manage couch their "replies" in the form of crude remarks about "Mr.
Krooberg" or "Howie Fester" and their so called "Borg" outlooks toward audio
in general. And with these accomplishments under their collective belts, you
still somehow feel that when Mr. Krueger takes a philosophical or literary
swing at them out of the blue that he has somehow violated a subliminal rule
your people have dreamed up.
What's more, I will do something like submit a post on speaker wear and tear,
or on surround sound, or on 2-way vs 3-way designs, or on woofer/woofer and
woofer/boundary interactions, and the people you seem to be defending will
immediately go into attack mode. However, it will not be an attack on the
ideas of the post. No comments on the subject at hand - just insults. All
they do is insult and heap scorn.
At least Mr. Krueger has made some solid contributions to this chat group.
Even those who rationally disagree with him will admit that has least *tried*
to contribute some meaningful ideas about audio. The people you appear to be
defending do nothing of the sort: neither contributions nor attempts at
contributions, just childish interjections that are posted to disrupt and
discredit.
The people you seem to be supporting behave like idiots on a continuous
basis, contributing nothing whatsoever of interest to this chat group, and
you somehow get offended that Mr. Krueger and I get a bit miffed at the huge
waste of time those people are causing. Give me a break.
PS: all of you should stop using the terms "Borg" and "Cyborg," because it
indicates that you watch too many adolescent-oriented Star Treck movies. Go
read a book.
Howard Ferstler
"trotsky" <g...@wwa.com> wrote:
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > What about speaker break in, Mr. Middius. Any opinions on the subject?
> >
> > PS: I am not a librarian, assistant or otherwise. Also, while more
> speakers
> > are not necessarily better, more channels certainly are.
> >
> > Howard Ferstler
> >
>
> I agree, Howard. I have an RCA DSS unit. What have you got?
I was referring to surround-sound channels. I have 8 in my main system,
counting the subwoofer channel. Nine speaker systems are involved, because
the center channel has a dedicated subwoofer. The driver count tops out at
38. My smaller system has 8 channels, also. Not as many subs or drivers,
however.
I have no DSS unit at all, preferring to collect or rent LD's and DVD's. Do
you have Dolby Digital with your DSS unit yet? Without that, for me it is a
useless item.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
> I was referring to surround-sound channels. I have 8 in my main system,
One for each ear????
:-)
Zip
TorResist
*Super*Sausage*System*:
>I was referring to surround-sound channels. I have 8 in my main system,
>counting the subwoofer channel. Nine speaker systems are involved, because
>the center channel has a dedicated subwoofer. The driver count tops out at
>38.
Oh Howie Howie Howie: Can't you hear the sound of real audiophiles howling with
laughter all across America at you? Do you know what an incoherent mess you've
described for music reproduction? Do you really think this is impressive to
someone like me or any of my many audiophile friends?
I first got involved in serious audio when I was ten years old. A neighbor
showed me how to take one speaker and wire up a second speaker to it. Off to
the auto junk yard we went. We came home with some ten or twenty speakers and
wired them in series all around our houses. Wow!
IM-fucking-PRESSIVE sounding!
The more the better!
That's how you sound.
And that-- all those dangling loose speakers-- is probably how your system
sounds.
tor
bro...@ase.com
Howard Ferstler <fers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <gms-ya02408000R...@news.wwa.com>,
> g...@wwa.com (greg singh) wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> > > The sad thing is the sub-literate nature of this reply. I have followed
> > > some of the comments of Mr. Middius and his ilk on the rao network for
> > > some time, and it is interesting to see how often they kind of hang
> > > around technically oriented, generally civil give-and-take, or how-to
> > > discussions dealing with audio, and interject snide, unrelated remarks,
> > > much the same way assorted flying bugs hang around people having a
> > > picnic.
>
> > Mr. Ferstler! Are telling me you have absolutely no comment on the
> > smarminess and shittiness of Arny Kroonger's remarks?
Kill file, Howard! ... Kill file!
TB
bro...@ase.com
Howard Ferstler <fers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <35ece7d4...@news.erols.com>,
> Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com (George M. Middius) wrote:
>
> > Uncle Fester has revealed his eminent qualifications
[crap flushed]
> What about speaker break in, Mr. Middius. Any opinions on the subject?
Don't count on it. Kill file, Howard! ... Kill file!
Howard Ferstler
>
Oops! The secret of my hearing ability is now out in the open.
Howard Ferstler
Todd R
>
>yairs wrote in message <35C7212A...@yahoo.com>...
>
>>Seems to me that speaker "break in" is a very convenient
>break
>>for speaker manufacturers & dealers.
>
>I see it as a pshychologial antidote for another very real
>psychological effect - buyer's remorse.
>
>>This way when someone buys a 5k speaker, brings it home
>>and then finds out the sound is terrible- well now,
>there's a simple solution.
>
>>Wait a month and it will improve.
>
>It probably will, but the major changes will have taken
>place in the buyer's head, not the speaker itself.
>
>>Ofcourse, regardless of objective improvement after a month
>you will
>>probably convince yourself that the sound ain't so bad.
>(cognitive disonance)
>
>Speaker's generally sound different. Also, it can take a
>while to figure out placement, and other system adjustments,
>to optimize the use of the speaker.
>
>>If "break in" is that important, why can't hi-end speaker
>manufacturers
>>do it themselves before the sell.
>
>Because they can't afford to send a shrink to every
>prospective customer's house? ;-)
>
>
>
Yeah right Arny,
I suppose when you buy a new pair of leather shoes they feel perfect from
day one don't they?
(Or are they a little stiff for the first few days? Nawww that's just your
feet getting used to them).
Howard Ferstler
> Howie takes a lesson from Arnie and tries to show off what he thinks is a
> *Super*Sausage*System*:
>
> >I was referring to surround-sound channels. I have 8 in my main system,
> >counting the subwoofer channel. Nine speaker systems are involved, because
> >the center channel has a dedicated subwoofer. The driver count tops out at
> >38.
>
> Oh Howie Howie Howie: Can't you hear the sound of real audiophiles howling with
> laughter all across America at you? Do you know what an incoherent mess you've
> described for music reproduction? Do you really think this is impressive to
> someone like me or any of my many audiophile friends?
>
> I first got involved in serious audio when I was ten years old. A neighbor
> showed me how to take one speaker and wire up a second speaker to it. Off to
> the auto junk yard we went. We came home with some ten or twenty speakers and
> wired them in series all around our houses. Wow!
> IM-fucking-PRESSIVE sounding!
> The more the better!
>
> That's how you sound.
> And that-- all those dangling loose speakers-- is probably how your system
> sounds.
Please understand, my two, floor-standing, IC-20 main speakers have ten drivers
each, configured in two MTTM arrays on separate front panels, each angled to off
center by 45 degrees. Bass is provided by two, ten-inch woofers in each cabinet,
mounted push-pull to reduce even-order harmonic distortion. Even when run full
range those systems are flat to 35 Hz and have remarkable bass performance and very
uniform dispersion over the entire 180-degree horizontal angle. My custom-made
center, which resembles the top half of an IC-20 on a short stand, has eight
Allison drivers, and as moderately equalized by my one-third-octave AudioControl
C-131, sounds identical to either IC-20. Each of my four surround speakers
(Allison LC-120 models) has two drivers: an Allison tweeter and an 8-inch Allison
woofer. I have two subwoofers: a Velodyne F1800 for the left, right, surround, and
LFE channels, and a Hsu TN1220 for the center channel.
That totals 38 drivers, in 9 systems, and 7 channels, powered (to the tune of 1700+
watts) by a combination of a Yamaha DSP-A3090 and a rather old Carver, pre-T-mod,
M500 amp, plus the sub amps. (The Carver drives the main speakers, and the Yamaha
drives all the rest, and biamps the center to the tune of 200 watts.)
The speaker systems, most of which were designed by my friend Roy Allison, all
sound sensational, and when the mains and center are given a 20-second-averaging
response measurement by my Audiocontrol SA-3051 RTA , they display a room response
between 80 Hz and 16 kHz of plus or minus 2 dB. (The response is intentionally
elevated somewhat below the lower frequency.)
They do this, not because of those massed drivers, but because those drivers
(which are mostly each quite good Allison-designed and Allison-built units, and
not OEM items purchased off the shelf by high-end, box-stuffing "designers" who do
not know how to build speaker drivers) are installed in intelligently designed
speaker systems. Note that I have no axe to grind against box stuffers, because
some of them stuff boxes pretty good. However, I consider a speaker designer who
builds his own drivers (particularly when the outfit involved is a rather small one
like Allison Acoustics was) to be expecially dedicated to seeing to it that
in-house design parameters are adhered to.
A variety of inputs are offered in this system, with the stress mainly on CD, LD,
and DVD, and with, I proudly note, the complete lack of an LP turntable. ( I sold
my LP collection many years ago.) The systems has video capabilities also,
needless to say, and programs are projected by a ceiling-mounted projector to an 8
x 4.5 foot screen, 14 feet from the listening position. The picture is enhanced by
a line doubler.
The listening room is 3400 cubic feet in size, has a slab floor, 6-inch-stud walls
(studs on 16-inch centers), and the wall covering is paneling bonded and nailed
over drywall, to create a non-resonant sandwich. The walls are lined with
bookcases (full of books) and record cases (full of discs), and have drapes
installed at strategic locations to reduce reflections. The room, which I had
especially built as a sound room, home theater, and testing facility can be
completely blacked out for video.
For smaller-scale work, I have another system in another part of the house (the
room is roughly 2000 cubic feet) that also has seven channels but only 8 speaker
systems Allison, NHT, and Radio Shack (!), with a total of only 16 drivers. It has
a subwoofer too (Velodyne FSR-12), but the TV set is only a pint-sized 45 inch
Mitsubishi. My wife uses it for watching talk movies.
I rather like what these systems can do, and consider them to be substantially
better than any two-channel installations I have ever heard. Of course, I can
always cut off the surround processors if I get a longing for the good old days..
OK, Mr. Tor. I listed my hardware. What do you have.
Howard Ferstler
Roy Briggs
>Howard Ferstler wrote:
>> I was referring to surround-sound channels. I have 8 in my main system,
>One for each ear????
ROTFLMAO! Good one, Zip!
__________________________________
Men will confess to treason, murder, arson, false
teeth, or a wig. How many of them will own up
to a lack of humor?
--FRANK MOORE COLBY
Roy Briggs. Remove [SPAMOFF] to reply.
William M. Johnson, Jr.
sound, I went for the 'get more sound' approach. At one time I was
pushing --get this-- Three thousand two hundred watts RMS
(calculated at the speaker's load impedances) into a total of eight
speakers and FOUR subwoofers. I had two front pairs of speakers,
my old (and since sold) modified Infinity SM-122s (Still, a good
sounding speaker if you improve the cabinets) and a pair of Yamaha
NS-1000s (very detailed, too much so but very well built)), and a rear
B channel, and a rear surround channel, oh, I forgot the center channel.
(ProLogic, you know.) Gag.
I'm afraid I fried the poor tweeters wide open on the Yamahas playing
Van Halen's 'Dirty Movies' off the FAIR WARNING cd, or maybe the
song was 'Unchained'. Great tunes, by the way...
At any rate, a few days after that listening session (ear abuse session?)
I discovered that the Yamahas had lost their tweeters (at $138.00 apiece!!).
This is what happens when you try to match levels with a pair of roughly
87dB efficient speakers (NS-1000s) and a pair of 93dB efficient speakers.
It takes four times the power to get the same SPL level and I'm sure I was
peaking 100 plus in the Infinitys. Figure it out. Not good when the Yamahas
are rated for a nominal 100 watts.
But it was a HUGE, spacious sound, I'll tell you that!
I'm sort of surprised that I only toasted one pair of tweeters. I'm sure I
had at least twice the max power rating per speaker available (Each amp
I was using was capable of delivering between 500 and 1000 watts into
their loads) and I wasn't afraid of using the volume control as a deadly
weapon. But it was CLEAN power, and I suppose that made the
difference.
And it was all in a 12.5 by 14.5 foot bedroom.
So, do I win a booby prize? I'm more civilized now, having trimmed
my power output to a mere 350 watts max per channel (at 6 ohms) with
a pair of Krell KMA-160 monoblocks rated at 160 watts nominal
at 8 ohms, 240 max at 8 ohms, and (estimated) 350 max at
6 ohms. I have a kilowatt for the subwoofer in a two channel system with
the sub in reserve for some movie watching. Surround sound courtesy
of a Carver Sonic Holography processor. I find it to be a very effective
little item, especially when the sub bass processor is also engaged.
Now THAT adds some good subsonic rumble.
I don't use the sub for music because my Aerial 10Ts go as low as the
sub and are tighter and have better bass definition, but when it's time to
drop in True Lies on LD, the sub comes on and the windows pop out
of their frames. What fun!
cj
Ron
<hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>greg singh wrote:
>
>> There sure is a lot of cowardice regarding audio dealers. Any good dealer
>> will allow an in-home evaluation with a broken-in pair of speakers before
>> you buy. Do you really think there are tons of people who buy $5000
>> speakers and then feel ripped-off afterwards? Get real.
>>
>> yairs <ya...@yahoo.com> wrote in article <35C7212A...@yahoo.com>...
>> > Seems to me that speaker "break in" is a very convenient break
>> > for speaker manufacturers & dealers.
>> > This way when someone buys a 5k speaker, brings it home
>> > and then finds out the sound is terrible-
>> > well now, there's a simple solution. Wait a month and it will improve.
>> >
>> > Ofcourse, regardless of objective improvement after a month you will
>> > probably
>> > convince yourself that the sound ain't so bad. (cognitive disonance)
>> >
>> > If "break in" is that important, why can't hi-end speaker manufacturers
>> > do it themselves before the sell.
>>
>> > on SWWang wrote:
>> > > 5) New speaker system does require "break in" period because I found
>> the
>> > > speaker
>> > > sounded even better after a month or so of playing, just like the
>> manual said.
>
>I would like to know what factors are involved in a speaker 'break in," and
>what calls a halt to the operation of those facors, once the break in is
>completed.
>
>Howard Ferstler
>
Tom Nousain has stated that speaker break-in is a myth. If
that's the case, it is possible that I my hearing is bad,
because I most definitely heard it EVERY BLESSED SINGLE TIME
I heard a pair of new speakers.
Most recently, I got home a pair of JBL speakers that had
their woofers fully rebuilt (replaced cones, voice coils,
surround foam and spiders) with original JBL parts. Trying
to gently push on the cones, to ascertian that there was no
voice coil rubbing, required distinctly higher force than
before. The sound was very poor: constricted, dull, missing
in the low end. Within hours of use, the sound gradually
returned to what it had been before. The effect was
unmistakeable. I doubt very much it was psychological.
I am not sure what mechanism is at play here. Possibly, the
spider and surround become more compliant with use, which
lowers the resosnant ffrequency. Since the enclosures are
designed with the final Fs in mind, the final effect could
be better control of cone motion and lowered distortion.
This should be more pronounced in acousitic suspension
designs. In vented enclosures, this would also even out the
frequency response.
-- Ron
Ron
on Fs, but not on Vas? Isn't the performance of an
acoustic suspension depend on Fs only?
But, technical explanation aside (it's purely
conjecture on my part, I am not an Acoustics
Engineer), the effect is unmistakeable. I have
winessed it many times.
In a previous life, I made a living building
custom sound systems. Mostly Electronics (my
background at the time was BSEE. I obtained
the MSCS degree much later), but also speaker
systems, because you can't tell a customer to
go elsewhere for their speakers.
Using cook book approach, I developed a number
of pet enclosure/driver combinations that worked
well for me. One of the most popular was a 12"
dual concentric Philips driver in a Karlson
enclosure, the blue print for which was published
in Radio Electronics (I guess this gives away my
age...). Others were varieties of Wharefdale 10"
or 8" speakers in bass reflex enclosures.
In all cases, the systems improved over the first
10 to 100 hours (never in a couple of hours and no
further improvement after several tens of hours).
This was pronounced enough and commonplace enough
to preclude listener adaptation or psychological
effects. Especially, since people do not usually
expect it. We are talking about at least 25 systems,
over several years.
So, while I respect your stance, I am still firmly
convinced that speakers do change during the initial
use period. The JBL example I cited is pretty recent
and reinforced my long held opinion. It was very
pronounced, both sonically and when physically moving
the cone.
Regards,
-- Ron
Nousaine wrote:
>
> <<<Tom Nousain has stated that speaker break-in is a myth. If that's the case,
> it is possible that I my hearing is bad,
> because I most definitely heard it EVERY BLESSED SINGLE TIME I heard a pair of
> new speakers.
> >>>
>
> Well I have conducted detailed experiments to find out what actually changes
> when a loudspeaker is initially used. IOW I measured and controlled variables.
> What happens is that the compliance changes as the speakers suspension is
> stretched. Thus Fs falls and Vas increases. Interestingly these are off-setting
> in performance terms. The speaker works the same in either case when it is used
> with some type of enclosure system. These changes take one or two full
> excercises of the suspension. So speakers do 'break-in' but the sound does not
> change because of that. Perceived sonic changes are due to listener adaptation.
> When the sound of your speaker actually does change with use it is wearing
> out...not breaking in.
gga...@my-dejanews.com
crossover that's actually breaking in. Just as with any other electronic
component that I've heard break in, including cables !!
Anonymous
>
> Tom Nousain has stated that speaker break-in is a myth.
nope this is not what he said. Read him again
more closely this time.
Ron
wrote:
OK, let me rephrase:
Tom Nousain has stated that EFFECT OF speaker break-in ON
PERFORMANCE is a myth.
In other words: he stated that the only difference
break-in can make is increase cone compliance and that
the increased cone compliance has zero effect on
performance.
-- Ron
Ron
wrote:
>[cut]
>
>Well, now I have to put my 2 cents in. I think it's the components in the
>crossover that's actually breaking in. Just as with any other electronic
>component that I've heard break in, including cables !!
Well, now I am on more familiar grounds... Cross-overs
contain coils and capacitors. Neither component is affected
by break-in, except for electrolytic caps, that are only
used in the cheapest made products.
As to cables: BULL! Can you point any ANY physical
characteristic that chages by breaking in the cable?
-- Ron
Howard Ferstler
ra...@concentric.net wrote:
> Tom Nousain has stated that speaker break-in is a myth. If
> that's the case, it is possible that I my hearing is bad,
> because I most definitely heard it EVERY BLESSED SINGLE TIME
> I heard a pair of new speakers.
>
> Most recently, I got home a pair of JBL speakers that had
> their woofers fully rebuilt (replaced cones, voice coils,
> surround foam and spiders) with original JBL parts. Trying
> to gently push on the cones, to ascertian that there was no
> voice coil rubbing, required distinctly higher force than
> before. The sound was very poor: constricted, dull, missing
> in the low end. Within hours of use, the sound gradually
> returned to what it had been before. The effect was
> unmistakeable. I doubt very much it was psychological.
>
> I am not sure what mechanism is at play here. Possibly, the
> spider and surround become more compliant with use, which
> lowers the resosnant ffrequency. Since the enclosures are
> designed with the final Fs in mind, the final effect could
> be better control of cone motion and lowered distortion.
> This should be more pronounced in acousitic suspension
> designs. In vented enclosures, this would also even out the
> frequency response.
I have replaced the surrounds on woofers a number of times. Often, the
aftermarket replacement surrounds are considerably less compliant than the
originals were, even when they were new. Just because the surrounds,
spiders, and etc. are OEM items, does not mean that they are the same OEM
items that you purchased when the speakers were new. Consequently, the
systems could actually have sounded different from when they were new.
I have no doubts that some speakers do change as they wear in. However, I
certainly would not want to own speakers that significantly change over a
so-called break-in period. I would like mine pre-broken-in if at all
possible, and guaranteed to not alter their performance over the warranty
period. I definitely do not want the flexible parts of my speakers to be
under such stress during the first few hours of use that they cause audible
changes in the sound.
Most manufacturers use the break-in ploy to handle the problem of customer
letdown with a system that sounds less able in the home environment than it
did in a specially outfitted showroom. Usually, after a few weeks, the
customer becomes used to the system and normalizes its behavior, after which
it seems to sound OK. The speaker does not change appreciably, but the owner
does.
The same thing could have happened with your rebuilt speakers. The only way
to tell for sure would be to purchase four brand-new speakers. Listen to the
first pair for as long as necessary to determine they were "broken in."
Then, you would do an AB test between them and the unplayed models.
Obviously, this would have to be a quick test, because the new units would be
on the way toward being broken in themselves as soon as the comparison began.
Howard Ferstler
Anonymous
> >> Tom Nousain has stated that speaker break-in is a myth.
> >more closely this time.
>
> OK, let me rephrase:
>
> Tom Nousain has stated that EFFECT OF speaker break-in ON
> PERFORMANCE is a myth.
>
> In other words: he stated that the only difference
> break-in can make is increase cone compliance and that
> the increased cone compliance has zero effect on
> performance.
as the vacationing mouse would say: "Almost
but not quite right." He spoke of offsetting
changes in _two_ main physical parameters
that have zero _net_ effect _sonically_.
What Nousaine did say is this:
http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=359542054
that he re-explained here in:
http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=357204382
http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=360506795
http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=360700289
If you need to know more especailly on hte
physio-psychological impact of speaker break-in
on the listner load these in the saerch window
of your browser:
http://x1.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?search=next&DBS=1&LNG=ALL&svcclass=dnserver&ST=PS&offsets=&svcclass=dnserver&CONTEXT=902794740.369229859
http://x1.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?search=next&DBS=1&LNG=ALL&svcclass=dnserver&ST=PS&offsets=&svcclass=dnserver&CONTEXT=902795788.374341647
Metaphacts
>Most manufacturers use the break-in ploy to handle the problem of customer
>letdown with a system that sounds less able in the home environment than it
>did in a specially outfitted showroom.
Please document precisely which manufacturers use break-in as a " ploy" to
handle "customer letdown". I assume the list will be very long, since according
to you "most" are doing it.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
Puff:
You are trying to reason with someone that is incapable of same.
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://www.sunshinestereo.com
Tel: 305-757-9358 Fax: 305-757-1367
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores FL 33138
PASS Labs NOVA Audio EAD Miranda CODA Audible Illusions CEC
Camelot Technology Audio Logic Parasound Kinergetics Cabasse
Chiro Benz Micro Gallo Acoustics Dunlavy Audio NEAR NHT Jadis
Niles Zenith INTEQ Crystal Vision Straightwire Mordaunt Short ESP
Rega Vans Evers Cleanlines Monster Cable ENTECH Arcane Audio
Sunshine Stereo encourages all audiophiles to support their local
dealers. If you do not have a local dealer, we will gladly assist
you with all your audio and video needs! *** ENJOY THE MUSIC! ***
George M. Middius
>>Most manufacturers use the break-in ploy to handle the
>>problem of customer letdown with a system that sounds
>>less able in the home environment than it did in a
>>specially outfitted showroom.
Metaphacts said:
>Please document precisely which manufacturers use break-in
>as a "ploy" to handle "customer letdown". I assume the list
>will be very long, since according to you "most" are doing it.
Bill, you've made a common newbie's mistake in
dealing with a member of the Audio Hive.
What is really going on is that Uncle Fester felt
the urge to rise to the occasion of rationalizing a
topic that has currency among normals — speaker
break-in. The official Hive "engineering" ;-) line,
based entirely on well-circulated Kroopaganda, is
that speaker break-in is not a speaker phenomenon
but a listener phenomenon.
Uncle Fester, on the other prosthesis, is attached
to the Fraud & Chicanery squad. It is their mission
to promote the sameness of all audio equipment, not
through the faux-engineering technobabble deployed
by the not-engineerborgs, but rather through a
nonstop parade of accusations of snake oil and
flimflammery. Speaker break-in is amenable to this
strategy. It is said by Howie's platoon to be yet
another ripoff tactic of the Evil High-End
Establishment, and therefore no argument on the
technical aspects of the issue can be brooked.
As you no doubt know, once a 'borg adopts a position
on any audio issue, the position becomes an article
of faith and is defended with a religious fervor
akin to the martyrdom of jihad suicide bombers. When
a 'borg stakes out a position, you have a better
chance of dancing for rainfall in the Mojave than of
repositioning the 'borg to conform with reality.
TorResist
>
>>>Most manufacturers use the break-in ploy to handle the
>>>problem of customer letdown with a system that sounds
>>>less able in the home environment than it did in a
>>>specially outfitted showroom.
And that's why most high end speaker manufacturers take the time to break-in
their designsTHEMSELVES before juding them, and fiddling with the design, right
Howard? How-weird, please pull your head out of your ass one day soon. At
least your voice won't sound as muffled and muddied as those dreadful mid-fi
Allison speakers you love!
And by the way, How-weird, those Allisons can serve a good purpose: You can use
them to announce that it's *dinner time*: Just set one in the middle of the
room and gently whack it with a rubber mallet-- please note that the cabinet
rings like an Oriental gong!
tor
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
>
> Howard Ferstler claimed:
>
> >>Most manufacturers use the break-in ploy to handle the
> >>problem of customer letdown with a system that sounds
> >>less able in the home environment than it did in a
> >>specially outfitted showroom.
>
>
> >Please document precisely which manufacturers use break-in
> >as a "ploy" to handle "customer letdown". I assume the list
> >will be very long, since according to you "most" are doing it.
>
> Bill, you've made a common newbie's mistake in
> dealing with a member of the Audio Hive.
George:
You made a serious error calling Bill Peugh a newbie. He formerly
worked with me at Sound Components, and was national sales manager for
Goldmund for 10 years, and owned Metaphor loudspeakers. He has been
lurking here for several years - but rarely posts. He is very aware of
the Festers of this world :-)
> What is really going on is that Uncle Fester felt
> the urge to rise to the occasion of rationalizing a
> topic that has currency among normals — speaker
> break-in. The official Hive "engineering" ;-) line,
> based entirely on well-circulated Kroopaganda, is
> that speaker break-in is not a speaker phenomenon
> but a listener phenomenon.
This isn't from Kreuger, this anto-speaker breakin manifesto comes from
none other than Sadam Noussaine, AKA ULTRABORG. Fester is just
parroting the party line.
> As you no doubt know, once a 'borg adopts a position
> on any audio issue, the position becomes an article
> of faith and is defended with a religious fervor
> akin to the martyrdom of jihad suicide bombers. When
> a 'borg stakes out a position, you have a better
> chance of dancing for rainfall in the Mojave than of
> repositioning the 'borg to conform with reality.
Well said.
Cheers
Zip
Douglas M. Stabler
Noussaine's view on speaker break-in is also shared by Dick Pierce, John
Dunlavy, Ken Kantor and Vance Dickason, to name a few.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc) wrote:
> George M. Middius wrote:
> >
> > Howard Ferstler claimed:
> >
> > >>Most manufacturers use the break-in ploy to handle the
> > >>problem of customer letdown with a system that sounds
> > >>less able in the home environment than it did in a
> > >>specially outfitted showroom.
>
> This isn't from Kreuger, this anto-speaker breakin manifesto comes from
George M. Middius
>> Bill, you've made a common newbie's mistake in
>> dealing with a member of the Audio Hive.
>You made a serious error calling Bill Peugh a newbie.
Au contraire, Zippy. He is a newbie — in dealing
with the Hive. Just like I said before. You can
see it right above because you quoted it in your
post as well.
>> As you no doubt know, once a 'borg adopts a position
>> on any audio issue, the position becomes an article
>> of faith and is defended with a religious fervor
>> akin to the martyrdom of jihad suicide bombers. When
>> a 'borg stakes out a position, you have a better
>> chance of dancing for rainfall in the Mojave than of
>> repositioning the 'borg to conform with reality.
>Well said.
Thank you.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
>
> Steve,
> Noussaine's view on speaker break-in is also shared by Dick Pierce, John
> Dunlavy, Ken Kantor and Vance Dickason, to name a few.
and not shared by Jim Thiel, Anthony Gallo, Jim Whiney (magnepan),
Michel Revershon (Goldmund), Arnie Nudell (Genesis), Carl Marshisoto
(Alon), Peter Walker (Quad), Albert Von Schweikert (VSR), and many
others. Do you know who these people are? How many succesful speakers
has Noussaine designed?
Zip
Howard Ferstler
metap...@aol.com (Metaphacts) wrote:
> Howard Ferstler claimed:
> >Most manufacturers use the break-in ploy to handle the problem of customer
> >letdown with a system that sounds less able in the home environment than it
> >did in a specially outfitted showroom.
> Please document precisely which manufacturers use break-in as a " ploy" to
> handle "customer letdown". I assume the list will be very long, since
according
> to you "most" are doing it.
Let me rephrase my original statement. I should have said that most
manufacturers who bother to state that a break in is required, use it as a
ploy to handle the problem of customer letdown with a system that sounds less
able in the home enviroment than it did in a specially outfitted showroom. I
have tested a number of speakers where the owner's manual made statements
about breaking in the speakers. One manufacturer even sent me a review sample
that he stated was already "broken in" just for me, so that would sound
normal.
It's a ploy, mostly. Although some exotic speakers might actually need a
break in and some manufacturers who make more conventional speakers might
actually believe their products need a break in, and others might use it as
an excuse to placate customers, a few probably realize that it is a myth -
and talk as they do to keep from alienating assorted product reviewers,
hard-driving audio sales people, and exciteable audio buffs.
As for which manufacturers who make specfic claims, I ordinarily try to leave
it to the prospective customer to discover that one. How? Well, I always
suggest that shoppers read the operator's manual that comes with a product
before plunking down the cash. That will give them an idea of how
conscientious a manufacturer is regarding the need for customers to get an
idea of how to work things, and will also give them an idea of how much of a
company's philosophy is baloney and how much of it makes sense.
I am not going to list brands, because if I did not list them all (and
admittedly, no one knows them all) and listed only the ones that I know about,
it would look like I was picking on people.
Also, just because a manufacturer makes such claims does not mean that his
speakers are not good. As I noted, some of those people talk like they do,
because to do otherwise would alienate them from the people I noted above who
tend to become alienated if a manufacturer says the wrong thing. They are
dealing with some pretty high-strung people at times.
Howard Ferstler
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
> Metaphacts wrote:
> >
> > Howard Ferstler claimed:
> >
> > >Most manufacturers use the break-in ploy to handle the problem of customer
> > >letdown with a system that sounds less able in the home environment than it
> > >did in a specially outfitted showroom.
> >
> > Please document precisely which manufacturers use break-in as a " ploy" to
> > handle "customer letdown". I assume the list will be very long, since
according
> > to you "most" are doing it.
>
> You are trying to reason with someone that is incapable of same.
Mr. Metaphacts' question was answered by me, elsewhere.
Howard Ferstler
Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com (George M. Middius) wrote:
> Howard Ferstler claimed:
>
> >>Most manufacturers use the break-in ploy to handle the
> >>problem of customer letdown with a system that sounds
> >>less able in the home environment than it did in a
> >>specially outfitted showroom.
>
>
> >Please document precisely which manufacturers use break-in
> >as a "ploy" to handle "customer letdown". I assume the list
> >will be very long, since according to you "most" are doing it.
>
> dealing with a member of the Audio Hive.
I answered Mr. Metaphacts' question, elsewhere.
Howard Ferstler
> As you no doubt know, once a 'borg adopts a position
> on any audio issue, the position becomes an article
> of faith and is defended with a religious fervor
> akin to the martyrdom of jihad suicide bombers. When
> a 'borg stakes out a position, you have a better
> chance of dancing for rainfall in the Mojave than of
> repositioning the 'borg to conform with reality.
Look who's talking.
TorResist
>The official Hive "engineering" ;-) line,
>> based entirely on well-circulated Kroopaganda, is
>> that speaker break-in is not a speaker phenomenon
>> but a listener phenomenon.
>
>none other than Sadam Noussaine, AKA ULTRABORG. Fester is just
>parroting the party line.
The problem here is in the definition of 'Kroopaganda' which has nothing
neccesarily to do with Kreuger.
Definition: Kroopaganda
1-The small body of utterly ridiculous defamatory statements about high end
audio and audiophiles circulated as axiomatic tenets of 'Borgism'. Borgism is a
bizarre cult-like religion followed by those who either cannot afford quality
gear and deeply resent people who can, or those who are in denial of their own
severe hearing problems.
2-Kroopagand is also a medical term for a disease that afflicts giant pandas
and over-zealous engineers. It is characterized by a fear of sensual pleasure
and a distrust in anything human. Acute Kroopaganda causes those afflicted to
cough raspily in a manner reminiscent of infantile Croup, and to sneeze
repeatedly. Oddly, the sneezing and coughing sound is similar from patient to
patient: "Ahh-Ahh Bex! Ahh-Ahh Bex!"
Prognosis is poor and the disease usually results in a slow and painful death.
There is no known cure as of yet but efforts at isolating those afflicted with
Kroopaganda-- to avoid infection of the general populace--are well underway.
The first isolated colony to contain Kroopaganda was established in Michigan.
tor
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
>
> GM writes:
> >The official Hive "engineering" ;-) line,
> >> based entirely on well-circulated Kroopaganda, is
> >> that speaker break-in is not a speaker phenomenon
> >> but a listener phenomenon.
> >
> >This isn't from Kreuger, this anto-speaker breakin manifesto comes from
> >none other than Sadam Noussaine, AKA ULTRABORG. Fester is just
> >parroting the party line.
>
> The problem here is in the definition of 'Kroopaganda' which has nothing
> neccesarily to do with Kreuger.
Then I submit a name change is in order
propborganda
> Definition: Kroopaganda
> 1-The small body of utterly ridiculous defamatory statements about high end
> audio and audiophiles circulated as axiomatic tenets of 'Borgism'. Borgism is a
> bizarre cult-like religion followed by those who either cannot afford quality
> gear and deeply resent people who can, or those who are in denial of their own
> severe hearing problems.
> 2-Kroopagand is also a medical term for a disease that afflicts giant pandas
> and over-zealous engineers. It is characterized by a fear of sensual pleasure
> and a distrust in anything human. Acute Kroopaganda causes those afflicted to
> cough raspily in a manner reminiscent of infantile Croup, and to sneeze
> repeatedly. Oddly, the sneezing and coughing sound is similar from patient to
> patient: "Ahh-Ahh Bex! Ahh-Ahh Bex!"
> Prognosis is poor and the disease usually results in a slow and painful death.
> There is no known cure as of yet but efforts at isolating those afflicted with
> Kroopaganda-- to avoid infection of the general populace--are well underway.
> The first isolated colony to contain Kroopaganda was established in Michigan.
>
> tor
--
BJRICHMAN
>2-Kroopagand is also a medical term for a disease that afflicts giant pandas
>and over-zealous engineers. It is characterized by a fear of sensual pleasure
>and a distrust in anything human. Acute Kroopaganda causes those afflicted to
>cough raspily in a manner reminiscent of infantile Croup, and to sneeze
>repeatedly. Oddly, the sneezing and coughing sound is similar from patient to
>patient: "Ahh-Ahh Bex! Ahh-Ahh Bex!"
>Prognosis is poor and the disease usually results in a slow and painful
>death.
>There is no known cure as of yet but efforts at isolating those afflicted
>with
>Kroopaganda-- to avoid infection of the general populace--are well underway.
>The first isolated colony to contain Kroopaganda was established in Michigan.
>
ROTFL.
So..............when can we expect vaccine trials to begin? RAO normals would
provide an excellent sample for the obligatory FDA-required research.
Bruce J. Richman
Edward Derson Hou
> Douglas M. Stabler wrote:
> >
> > Steve,
> > Noussaine's view on speaker break-in is also shared by Dick Pierce, John
> > Dunlavy, Ken Kantor and Vance Dickason, to name a few.
Some clarification please:
they don't believe in what, exactly? That straight out of the box they
sound exactly the same as they will after 10 years of music?
Do Dunlavy/NHT/etc speakers not reach their optimal sound after perhaps a
week or two?
-Eddie
Barry Rothman
Just how would Howie the speaker break-in expert then explain the fact
that most dealers, and I expect you are certainly included, feel it
necessary to break in a new set of speakers being used as floor models
before letting customers audition them. Hell, if they don't require
breakin, they why waste the time when you could just go straight to
making the sale.
Barry
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc) wrote:
>
> Douglas M. Stabler wrote:
> >
> > Steve,
> > Noussaine's view on speaker break-in is also shared by Dick Pierce, John
> > Dunlavy, Ken Kantor and Vance Dickason, to name a few.
>
Jester
Where I work, sending a floor model home with a customer for demo purposes
is a sure way to let them discover how the speaker will sound when properly
set up and broken in. More than once, a pair was purchased based on the demo
floor model, and we get a call from the customer saying his new pair don't
quite sound like the floor demo's. A quick comparison in their house with
the above-mentioned demo model puts them at ease, and once the break in
period for their new pair has elapsed, they report back that all is well.
jester
Barry Rothman wrote in message <35D0954F...@pop3.concentric.net>...
Sandman
Howard Ferstler <fers...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<6qpvgv$npo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <199808111217...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> metap...@aol.com (Metaphacts) wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler claimed:
>
> > >Most manufacturers use the break-in ploy to handle the problem of
customer
> > >letdown with a system that sounds less able in the home environment
than it
> > >did in a specially outfitted showroom.
>
> > Please document precisely which manufacturers use break-in as a " ploy"
to
> > handle "customer letdown". I assume the list will be very long, since
> according
> > to you "most" are doing it.
Doin' the "sidestep":
> Let me rephrase my original statement.
With one eensy-weensy "backstep":
> I should have said that most
> manufacturers who bother to state that a break in is required, use it as
a
> ploy to handle the problem of customer letdown with a system that sounds
less
> able in the home enviroment than it did in a specially outfitted
showroom.
Adding a "Hip-roll":
> I have tested a number of speakers where the owner's manual made
statements
> about breaking in the speakers. One manufacturer even sent me a review
sample
> that he stated was already "broken in" just for me, so that would sound
> normal.
Using the other foot to do a "backstep":
> It's a ploy, mostly.
Doin' a complete "bounce-back" on both feetsies:
> Although some exotic speakers might actually need a
> break in
But landing squarely on both feet (but the left foot dragging slightly):
> and some manufacturers who make more conventional speakers might
> actually believe their products need a break in, and others might use it
as
> an excuse to placate customers,
With "most" degenerating to "some" degenerating to "a few", a complete
"backflip" is in order:
> a few probably realize that it is a myth -
> and talk as they do to keep from alienating assorted product reviewers,
> hard-driving audio sales people, and exciteable audio buffs.
Trying to calm down those "exciteable audio buffs", he assumes an
"assplant" position but manages to execute a
"slap-in-the-face-for-asking-such-a-silly-question calling for specifics":
> As for which manufacturers who make specfic claims, I ordinarily try to
leave
> it to the prospective customer to discover that one.
Recovering nicely and bouncing back erect, he puts his "right-foot-in":
> How? Well, I always
> suggest that shoppers read the operator's manual that comes with a
product
> before plunking down the cash. That will give them an idea of how
> conscientious a manufacturer is regarding the need for customers to get
an
> idea of how to work things,
And puts his "left-foot-out":
> and will also give them an idea of how much of a
> company's philosophy is baloney and how much of it makes sense.
And does the "hokey-pokey":
> I am not going to list brands,
And "turns-himself-about":
> because if I did not list them all (and
> admittedly, no one knows them all) and listed only the ones that I know
about,
> it would look like I was picking on people.
(God forbid!)
So do the "hokey-pokey" one more time, combined with multiple "side-steps"
as only a verbal contortionist can perform:
> Also, just because a manufacturer makes such claims does not mean that
his
> speakers are not good. As I noted, some of those people talk like they
do,
> because to do otherwise would alienate them from the people I noted above
who
> tend to become alienated if a manufacturer says the wrong thing. They are
> dealing with some pretty high-strung people at times.
Thank heavens for the calming effect of a little jig-a-de-jig.
Sandman
(with apologies to Howard -
It's just one of those days
and I just couldn't resist)
Sandman
Barry Rothman <brot...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote in article
<35D0954F...@pop3.concentric.net>...
> Zip:
>
> Just how would Howie the speaker break-in expert then explain the fact
> that most dealers, and I expect you are certainly included, feel it
> necessary to break in a new set of speakers being used as floor models
> before letting customers audition them. Hell, if they don't require
> breakin, they why waste the time when you could just go straight to
> making the sale.
>
> Barry
You just HAD to ask THAT one, didn't you...:-)
Sandman
Max Christoffersen
>"Thank heavens for the calming effect of a little jig-a-de-jig."
Sandman(with apologies to Howard -It's just one of those days and I just
couldn't resist)"<
This post deserves an award - absolutely hilarious, to the point and
accurate...one of the greats!
On the point, I can accept that any mechanical device would be better for
break-in (including cone speakers)..but I'm less clear about
panels..anyone bring me up to speed on how panels would benefit?
Max Christoffersen
Metaphacts
>Let me rephrase my original statement. I should have said that most
>manufacturers who bother to state that a break in is required, use it as a
>ploy to handle the problem of customer letdown with a system that sounds less
>able in the home enviroment than it did in a specially outfitted showroom.
So I will restate my very simple request. Please document precisely which
manufacturers use break-in as a " ploy" to handle "customer letdown".
You have made some very strong claims about manufacturers that I am asking you
to verify.
By not identifying your alleged "bad guys", you have called into question the
ethics of all manufacturers who say that their speakers need break-in.
John Wall
Barry Rothman <brot...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote:
>Zip:
>
>Just how would Howie the speaker break-in expert then explain the fact
>that most dealers, and I expect you are certainly included, feel it
>necessary to break in a new set of speakers being used as floor models
>before letting customers audition them. Hell, if they don't require
>breakin, they why waste the time when you could just go straight to
>making the sale.
>
>Barry
Maybe because he is operating under misinfortion, ingorance ...
you name it.
Howard Ferstler
witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one has to wonder why so much
thought and effort went into something so pointless.
Er..., apogies to Sandman for the remarks, but I could not help myself.
Actually, if you take the time to read my comments, without paying attention
to Mr. Sandman's slice-and-skewer interjections, I think they jell pretty
good.
Mr. Sandman, pardon this digression to again lambast a certain category of
individuals who post on rao. This does not constitute an attack on you,
please note.
I am continually amused (and often not so amused) by the way assorted
commentators on rao make a point of tearing down the opinions of others who
are willing to stick their necks out and take the time to comment at length
on a varity of audio-related subjects. Most of the critics will fixate on a
section or two of a lengthy commentary, and proceed to work it over with
semi-witty comments, pointless questions, or nasty remarks about the poster's
name or sexual orientation, or somesuch. (Credit must be due to Sandman for
uniformly spacing his rather tame interjections throughout the length of my
commentary.) I have yet to see any of the interjectors or critics take the
bit in their respective sets of teeth, and make some positive, lengthy, and
original contributions about the subject of audio to our little discussion
group.
These negativists always react and never really have much to say in the way
of positive contributions. Nothing on speaker design or speaker/room
interactions, just "I like this," or whatever. Nothing on surround sound,
just "The blah-blah processor sucks," or somesuch. Nothing or recording
technology, nothing on exactly *why* certain amps sound better than certain
other amps. Nothing on *why* wire supposedly contributes sound to
recordings. All we get are silly reactions to original posts, or long-winded
jokes, or absolutely wild opinions that are based on flights of fancy. The
critics continually comment about rao being an "opinion" chat group, but
conveniently forget that the subject matter should at least deal with audio.
In addition, we find that many rao posters, display a downright hysterical
suspicion of anyone who claims to have done any kind of blind listening
comparisons or scientific measurements - be they "real" scientists or
engineers, or just lay people who are interested in something more rigorous
than a simple "I believe" statement. They continually talk of knee-jerk
reactions from the "borgs," while they display knee-jerk reactions of their
own, and do so in the extreme.
Nowhere in his comments, below, did Mr. Sandman actually give reasons for
what are, I assume, his strong objections to what I said. For one thing, we
have no comments from him concerning why he does or does not believe that
speakers, conventional or otherwise, require a break-in period. Will we get
some hard data from him, or are all his opinions on the subject simply going
to be more of the "I heard it; I believe it" variety? I wait, with bated
breath.
Howard Ferstler
In article <6qqaeo$n2e$2...@news-2.news.gte.net>,
"Sandman" <sand...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
> Howard Ferstler <fers...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
> <6qpvgv$npo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > In article <199808111217...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > metap...@aol.com (Metaphacts) wrote:
> >
> > > Howard Ferstler claimed:
> >
> > > >Most manufacturers use the break-in ploy to handle the problem of
> customer
> > > >letdown with a system that sounds less able in the home environment
> than it
> > > >did in a specially outfitted showroom.
> >
> > > Please document precisely which manufacturers use break-in as a " ploy"
> to
> > > handle "customer letdown". I assume the list will be very long, since
> > according
> > > to you "most" are doing it.
>
> Doin' the "sidestep":
>
> > Let me rephrase my original statement.
>
> With one eensy-weensy "backstep":
>
> > I should have said that most
> > manufacturers who bother to state that a break in is required, use it as
> a
> > ploy to handle the problem of customer letdown with a system that sounds
> less
> > able in the home enviroment than it did in a specially outfitted
> showroom.
>
> Thank heavens for the calming effect of a little jig-a-de-jig.
>
> Sandman
> (with apologies to Howard -
> It's just one of those days
> and I just couldn't resist)
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Armand
Don't you know you shouldn't operate any heavy machinery under the influence of
Misinfortion and Ingorance? It's right on the label.
Armand
Sandman
Max Christoffersen <max...@wave.co.nz> wrote in article
<6qqf19$917$1...@news.wave.co.nz>...
>
> >"Thank heavens for the calming effect of a little jig-a-de-jig."
>
> Sandman(with apologies to Howard -It's just one of those days and I just
> couldn't resist)"<
>
>
> This post deserves an award - absolutely hilarious, to the point and
> accurate...one of the greats!
Gawrsh, thanks, Max!
Goofy
> On the point, I can accept that any mechanical device would be better for
> break-in (including cone speakers)..but I'm less clear about
> panels..anyone bring me up to speed on how panels would benefit?
I'm no expert on anything, just someone who enjoys my audio hobby and has
fun playing with words. ;-)
Sandman
Sandman
Metaphacts <metap...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808112219...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >Let me rephrase my original statement. I should have said that most
> >manufacturers who bother to state that a break in is required, use it as
a
> >ploy to handle the problem of customer letdown with a system that sounds
less
> >able in the home enviroment than it did in a specially outfitted
showroom.
>
> So I will restate my very simple request. Please document precisely which
> manufacturers use break-in as a " ploy" to handle "customer letdown".
>
> You have made some very strong claims about manufacturers that I am
asking you
> to verify.
He already answered you to the tune of "Doin' the Hokey Pokey". Didn't you
see my "jig-a-de-jig" post?
Did you really expect any better answer than that?
;-)
(oops)
Sandman
The Devil
>While I have to admit that the commentary of Sandman, below, is funny and
>witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one has to wonder why so much
>thought and effort went into something so pointless.
ROTFLMFAO! You TWAT, Howard!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Never explain - your friends do not need it
and your enemies will not believe you
anyway.
--ELBERT HUBBARD
Roy Briggs. Remove [SPAMOFF] to reply.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
>
> While I have to admit that the commentary of Sandman, below, is funny and
> witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one has to wonder why so much
> thought and effort went into something so pointless.
Yup, Howie, it sounds just like your book - lottsa work went into it and
its pointless :-)
Zip
Sandman
Howard Ferstler <fers...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<6qqrq2$3l2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> While I have to admit that the commentary of Sandman, below, is funny and
> witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one has to wonder why so
much
> thought and effort went into something so pointless.
No real thought at all, Howard - just popped out of my keyboard as I was
reading your post. But thanks for the compliment - I was in a funny mood,
you might say.
> Er..., apogies to Sandman for the remarks, but I could not help myself.
> Actually, if you take the time to read my comments, without paying
attention
> to Mr. Sandman's slice-and-skewer interjections, I think they jell pretty
> good.
"Slice-and-skewer"! I like that! Nice ring to it. Jolly jelly good!
> Mr. Sandman, pardon this digression to again lambast a certain category
of
> individuals who post on rao. This does not constitute an attack on you,
> please note.
Noted. Thank you.
Actually, my objections were of the rather weak, silly, goofball variety
(hardly, IMO, requiring "reasons" beyond the existence of an inborn
perverse sense of humor).
> For one thing, we
> have no comments from him concerning why he does or does not believe that
> speakers, conventional or otherwise, require a break-in period. Will we
get
> some hard data from him, or are all his opinions on the subject simply
going
> to be more of the "I heard it; I believe it" variety? I wait, with bated
> breath.
I have no opinion on the subject, actually, and could care less. I was
just trying to inject a little light-hearted humor. The entire point of my
jestful jousting was that you wrote paragraph after paragraph in response
to a very specific request for very specific information and never once
answered the question. Now do you get it?
Sandman
TorResist
>While I have to admit that the commentary of Sandman, below, is funny and
>>witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one has to wonder why so much
>>thought and effort went into something so >pointless.
Ya know what, How-weird? Save this post of yours. The end of it will make a
GREAT tombstone epitaph for you:
"Here lies Dame How-weird Ferstler
Of her life, we can say:
One has to wonder why so much
hought and effort went into something so pointless.
Now How-weird? Wouldya please take everyone's advice and hold yourself out as
an expert in something like Lincoln Logs, or Beanie Babys? You'll be more
credible that way.
tor
One has to wonder wht so muc
George M. Middius
— filament, bulb, and base, all in one gulp.
>While I have to admit that the commentary of Sandman, below,
>is funny and witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one
>has to wonder why so much thought and effort went into
>something so pointless.
One also has to wonder how God was able to
reformulate some lunar green cheese into Howie's
brain. Do you believe in God, Howie? It's OK to
admit it if you do, because Arnold Long-Sausage,
your fearless Hivemaster, has already claimed to
believe. Who programmed you, Howie? Are you a
deviant 'borg? Why do you blame Sanders for your
own difficulties with language?
>Er..., apogies to Sandman for the remarks, but I could not
>help myself. Actually, if you take the time to read my comments,
>without paying attention to Mr. Sandman's slice-and-skewer
>interjections, I think they jell pretty good.
We need an editor over here. Uncle Fester is having
a breakdown.
>Mr. Sandman, pardon this digression to again lambast a certain
>category of individuals who post on rao. This does not
>constitute an attack on you, please note.
Noted. Please. Continue, please, note.
>I am continually amused (and often not so amused) by the
>way assorted commentators on rao make a point of tearing
>down the opinions of others who are willing to stick their
>necks out and take the time to comment at length on a varity
>of audio-related subjects.
Once upon a time there lived an anal little troll.
He spent his days in the dark dungeon of a library
and his nights in the dark prison of his cluttered
apartment. He acquired a dictionary and began to
make piles of words. He learned of punctuation and
noted that he could separate little piles of words
with bits of punctuation. More piles, little piles,
deeper piles. The piles became so thick that even
the moonlight was hidden from the troll.
>Most of the critics will fixate on a
>section or two of a lengthy commentary, and proceed to
>work it over with semi-witty comments, pointless questions,
>or nasty remarks about the poster's name or sexual
>orientation, or somesuch.
The troll felt sadness and a sense of loneliness.
He remembered another creature like himself, one
who comforted him sometimes. Wait! The other troll
had named him "Howie"! Oh, where is that gentle,
loving troll now? Howie scratched himself and
plodded over to his subwoofer. He fingered the
controls idly. He knelt down and prayed to the
subwoofer. "Mr. Subwoofer, won't you guide me?
Won't you fill the room with sound for me?" But the
subwoofer remained silent. Howie stared at it for a
little while, until his misery overcame him. He
curled up on the floor, whimpering, hoping for the
throbbing bass notes that would transport him away
from the darkness....
>(Credit must be due to Sandman
>for uniformly spacing his rather tame interjections
>throughout the length of my commentary.) I have yet to see
>any of the interjectors or critics take the bit in their
>respective sets of teeth, and make some positive, lengthy,
>and original contributions about the subject of audio to our
>little discussion group.
In the morning, rude Mr. Sun poked through the tiny
cracks in the heavy curtains. Howie the Troll bent
over and tongue-washed his toes. He remembered that
morning is when he should eat his rations. Blearily
he stumbled into the kitchen.He remembered the pain
of spending an evening without Mr. Subwoofer. He
shut his eyes tight and squeezed his very long
fingernails into his palms. The pain made him jump.
He tripped over a pile of broken turntables and
fell headfirst into a pile of garbage on the
kitchen floor. Whimpering, he pulled himself to his
feet. What to eat? he wonders. He pawed at the
refrigerator. Ooh! Custard! He pulled off the cover
and wondered what flavor it is. Well, doesn't
matter, trolls can eat anything. He slurped it down
and stumbled into the bathroom, embarking on yet
another round of ablutions before he joined the
humans in their world of sociability and only two
channels of music.
>These negativists always react and never really have much to
>say in the way of positive contributions. Nothing on speaker
>design or speaker/room interactions, just "I like this," or
>whatever. Nothing on surround sound, just "The blah-blah
>processor sucks," or somesuch.
At the door, Howie reached reflexively for his face
mask, then remembered what the police offer told
him about that. He settled for large sunglasses and
a floppy-brim hat. He grabbed an umbrella for good
measure. Off to the library for another day of
delicious toiling in the darkness. The stacks are
comforting, particularly the ones below ground. His
little friends with the whiskers and slippery tails
would keep him company. And if he got hungry, they
weren't bad to eat. Howie slammed the door behind
him and thought achingly of Mommy Troll....
>Nothing or recording
>technology, nothing on exactly *why* certain amps sound
>better than certain other amps. Nothing on *why* wire
>supposedly contributes sound to recordings. All we get are
>silly reactions to original posts, or long-winded jokes, or
>absolutely wild opinions that are based on flights of fancy.
>The critics continually comment about rao being an
>"opinion" chat group, but conveniently forget that the subject
>matter should at least deal with audio.
Howie the Troll led an uneventful life, he did.
There were the books, and the journals, and the
date-stamp. The carts full of books were a joy to
Howie, as were the microfiche cardfiles. Oh, they
had tried to put in computers, but Howie would have
none of that! He sabotaged the computers so they
wouldn't work. The digital age was Howie's private
domain. If only he could find a way to listen to
his 56-channel surround system in a purely digital
mode, that would be perfect. But it seemed
impossible. The very smart men in the Biology Dept.
had told him he would need an internal
digital-to-audio converter in his very own brain if
he wanted to bypass his ears. Howie thought that
was wonderful, but the biology scientists refused
to give it to him. It was only a matter of money,
of course — Howie knew that. All the pleasures that
were out of his reach would become available if he
had enough money. Money was the ticket. Money for
implants, money for a wife, money for more speakers
and more channels. Money was the problem. Howie
would get money someday.
>In addition, we find that many rao posters, display a
>downright hysterical suspicion of anyone who claims to have
>done any kind of blind listening comparisons or scientific
>measurements - be they "real" scientists or engineers, or just
>lay people who are interested in something more rigorous
>than a simple "I believe" statement. They continually talk of
>knee-jerk reactions from the "borgs," while they display
>knee-jerk reactions of their own, and do so in the extreme.
Howie's reverie ended with a loud RAP! His legs
shot out and his knees bumped the desk sharply. He
yelped with pain and jumped to his feet. "What is
it?" Howie snapped. Across the room stood young Ms.
Gertlich. "Excuse me, Howie, but the Chief
Librarian wants to see you in his office." Howie
stared at her. Why did this comely young Jezebel
taunt him so? At every opportunity, she showed him
the profile of her svelte figure. Mommy would have
approved. Mommy wasn't svelte but she did love
Howie. His fingernails dug into his palms again. He
remembered to answer Ms. Gertlich. "Yes, Ms.
Gertlich, I'm going." He lurched past her and
stumbled down the hall.
Howie pushed into Mr. Kreplinger's office. His boss
glanced up and motioned Howie to a chair, then went
back to his paperwork. Howie sat and stared at the
painting on the wall. It showed several young women
in various stages of undress, apparently enjoying
themselves as they tossed around a beach ball.
Howie loved that picture. It reminded him of Mommy
Troll. Mommy didn't have to leave Howie, but she
did anyway. She was loving and generous but she had
left Howie! Howie buried his face in his bloody
palms and rocked back and forth in his chair,
moaning softly.
"Howie! Stop that!" Howie glanced up. Kreplinger
was staring at him in anger. "Sorry," Howie
muttered. Kreplinger continued to stare for a bit,
then sat back in his chair. "Howie, you're making a
lot of people annoyed. We've talked about this
before. It's not just your co-workers any more —
now the students and faculty are becoming
uncomfortable. Is there anything you'd like to tell
me, maybe about your personal life?"
>Nowhere in his comments, below, did Mr. Sandman actually
>give reasons for what are, I assume, his strong objections to
>what I said. For one thing, we have no comments from him
>concerning why he does or does not believe that speakers,
>conventional or otherwise, require a break-in period. Will
>we get some hard data from him, or are all his opinions on
>the subject simply going to be more of the "I heard it; I
>believe it" variety? I wait, with bated breath.
"Howie, I believe you have crossed a line. When a
person crosses that line, you know, it's the best
thing for him to seek help. Do you understand me?"
Howie stared uncomprehendingly. Kreplinger was
talking to him but Howie couldn't understand it.
Where was the proof? Where was the explanation?
Things didn't just happen, there were causes for
everything. Howie got to his feet awkwardly. He
wanted to tell Kreplinger what he felt but he
couldn't find the words. He shuffled across the
carpet. On his way out, the heavy doorknob banged
into his butt and gave him a shock. Howie jumped.
He didn't know what to believe any more.
SJMARCY
it and its pointless :-)>>>
I have noticed that you seem to completely misunderstand various high end
consumer electronics fundamentals, especially those related to home theater,
Zip. Things like THX, comb filters, line doublers, etc are some recent
examples. Reading and understanding books such as Howard's might help you get
up to speed. Potentially, your credibility could be enhanced. Or else you
could continue to wing it.
Stan
Howard Ferstler
"The Devil" <DemonScript@[SPAMOFF]dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> Howard Ferstler wrote
>
> >While I have to admit that the commentary of Sandman, below, is funny and
> >witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one has to wonder why so much
> >thought and effort went into something so pointless.
>
I know this marks me as an rao-lingo ignoramus, but what do the above acronyms
mean? I believe I have just been insulted.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
"Sandman" <sand...@gte.net> wrote:
> Metaphacts <metap...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <199808112219...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> > Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > >Let me rephrase my original statement. I should have said that most
> > >manufacturers who bother to state that a break in is required, use it as
> a
> > >ploy to handle the problem of customer letdown with a system that sounds
> less
> > >able in the home enviroment than it did in a specially outfitted
> showroom.
> > So I will restate my very simple request. Please document precisely which
> > manufacturers use break-in as a " ploy" to handle "customer letdown".
> >
> > You have made some very strong claims about manufacturers that I am
> asking you
> > to verify.
> He already answered you to the tune of "Doin' the Hokey Pokey". Didn't you
> see my "jig-a-de-jig" post?
>
> Did you really expect any better answer than that?
Here is one that is even worse. It is always considered in bad taste to
answer a question with another question, but I will do that, anyway. (I often
specialize in bad taste during discussions, even if I do at least hold off on
the profanity.)
You give me a list of some high-end manufacturers who do *not* say that their
speakers required a break in after purchase. I'll wager that most of those
you list (assuming you can find any) still make a point of noting that they
"pre" break in their speakers before they are sold.
As I noted in a previous post, picking out a few of what I consider to be
"bad" examples would make it look like I am picking on them. If you can list
companies ("good" examples) that do not suggest or openly state that a break
in "improves" the sound, it will at least not look like you are picking on
them.
Interestingly, even with those companies, I would imagine that it is SOP with
a lot of dealers to tell customers who complain about the initial sound
quality to "give the speakers a bit of time to break in." Many probably use
the same line in the case of wire and amplfiers.
Howard Ferstler
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > While I have to admit that the commentary of Sandman, below, is funny and
> > witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one has to wonder why so much
> > thought and effort went into something so pointless.
> Yup, Howie, it sounds just like your book - lottsa work went into it and
> its pointless :-)
> Zip
Still have not read it, have you? Since he brought up the subject, I will
note that the book Zip is talking about is my The Home Theater Companion
(Schirmer, 1997, 437 pages). It just got a good review in Audio magazine
(August), and a good review can also be found at:
http://www.ambiophonics.org/ferstler.htm
The latter also appeared in The Audiophile Voice.
An earlier book, High Definition Compact Disc Recordings (McFarland, 1994, 258
pages) is a compendium of sound-quality reviews, and was given an excellent
writeup by recording engineer John Eargle, in Audio (October, 1995).
Give them a read - you too, Steve. And thanks for giving me the opportunity
to hawk my materials again.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
torr...@aol.com (TorResist) wrote:
> >Howard Ferstler claimed:
> >>>Most manufacturers use the break-in ploy to handle the
> >>>problem of customer letdown with a system that sounds
> >>>less able in the home environment than it did in a
> >>>specially outfitted showroom.
> And that's why most high end speaker manufacturers take the time to break-in
> their designsTHEMSELVES before juding them, and fiddling with the design,
right
> Howard? How-weird, please pull your head out of your ass one day soon. At
> least your voice won't sound as muffled and muddied as those dreadful mid-fi
> Allison speakers you love!
>
> And by the way, How-weird, those Allisons can serve a good purpose: You can
use
> them to announce that it's *dinner time*: Just set one in the middle of the
> room and gently whack it with a rubber mallet-- please note that the cabinet
> rings like an Oriental gong!
Allison speakers always got good reviews in the journals that reviewed them,
so at least some people disagree with what you say. Hirsch rated the IC-20
very highly, as did High Fidelity magazine back in the days before it folded.
Even Gordon Holt gave a pair of CD-9's a good review some time back. The
company's products always did well in the Consumer Reports reviews, too,
because, like Allison, that organization was oriented toward power response.
Personally, I consider good power response to only be a starting point, and
rate radiation pattern as being more important. But their approach is better
than what a lot of high-end-oriented magazines work with.
Anyway, I rather like the so-called "mid-fi" sound, myself. Sounds more
realistic than a lot of high-end "hi-fi."
I have A/B-compared assorted Allison models to a number of other brands, and
while they always sounded more spacious, they never sounded "muffled" in
comparison. Indeed, the LC-120, which I use for surround speakers in my
main system and as main speakers in my smaller one, always has struck me as a
tad too bright and well-etched sounding with a lot of recordings.
At least Allison published papers on room acoustics and speaker design. He
was willing to submit his ideas for critical commentary. What has the
designer of your speakers published in relation to his designs, or in
relation to his ideas on speaker/room interactions? Also, we still do not
know if the drivers he used were built by him or simply purchased. Allison
built his own, you know. Pulsating-hemisphere tweeter and midrange -
patented, by the way. Published the driver curves, too, to show what they
could do from on axis all the way out to 90 degrees off, and not just the
usual 30- or 45-degree measurements. At 90 degrees, and within their
designated bandwidth ranges, they were nearly as flat and smooth as on axis,
incidentally.
A cabinet resonance will often show up in a FR plot if it is going to be a
problem. The Allison models measured flatter than most. None of the reviews I
read ever complained about audible cabinet resonances. I have not had any
problem with them. No speakers are perfect, but none of the people who have
reviewed them ever thought they were anything but pretty darn good.
Tom Melanson
My personal observations over more than two decades:
A. Many designers absolutely do believe that speaker break in is a
reality. While Jim Winey never mentioned (some 18 yrs ago) his Tympani
111A needing a break in period, Anthony Gallo and I have disagreed about
this phenomenon's relative importance in regards to his products.
Anthony absolutely believes that his speakers change dramatically in the
first couple of weeks. I disagree. Perhaps a tiny bit of constriction
and less bass in the first few MINUTES...maybe. But he's the designer
and I don't think for a minute that he's trying to "put anything over"
on anyone.
B: Bill Eggleston never mentioned break in with the Andra.
C: J. Gordon Holt, to my knowledge, never wrote about speaker break in.
Nor did Arnie Nudell mention it in regards to his early ServoStatik.
D. Think about it. Fifteen or twenty years ago, did you ever hear about
speakers "breaking in"? I didn't. Not once. Not ever.
While some may use this as a "ploy", most who advocate a break in period
do so-in my experience- because they genuinely believe it matters.
However, you can count me in the skeptical column. Personally, over the
years with more than a half dozen major systems, I've never heard it.
Tom
P.S. Nor with cables, DACs, Preamps, Amps, DSS receivers, TV's, etc.
George M. Middius
>> >While I have to admit that the commentary of Sandman, below, is funny and
>> >witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one has to wonder why so much
>> >thought and effort went into something so pointless.
>> ROTFLMFAO! You TWAT, Howard!
>I know this marks me as an rao-lingo ignoramus, but what do the above acronyms
>mean? I believe I have just been insulted.
ROTFLMFAO: See "Krooborgana, Snotware, and
Assimilition Tactics for Usenet," by Arnold
Long-Sausage of Michigan. Copyright unknown but this
book's publication was author-funded, so it should
be right up your alley.
TWAT: Uppercase used for emphasis, you fucking
idiot.
Now go back into your dungeon and plot some more
kidnappings.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
>
> In article <6qqun5$h1n$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>,
> "The Devil" <DemonScript@[SPAMOFF]dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> > Howard Ferstler wrote
> >
> > >witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one has to wonder why so much
> > >thought and effort went into something so pointless.
> >
>
> I know this marks me as an rao-lingo ignoramus, but what do the above acronyms
> mean? I believe I have just been insulted.
>
Howard:
You do not know what a twat is? Did you grow up on earth? If you still
haven't figured it out, think of another word for an animal that goes
meow. It is slang for a female's genital organ. Does that help?
Zip
Barry Rothman
>
>
>
> Anyway, I rather like the so-called "mid-fi" sound, myself. Sounds more
> realistic than a lot of high-end "hi-fi."
>
>
Howard:
Thank you for fessing up to the real truth. I guess if you were an
acoustic guitar player as well, you might tell us that you really
prefer the sound of mid-fi $400 Takamine/Fender/(insert name here)
over a $3500+ Olson or Santa Cruz. If you have ever, in fact, heard
the sound of a good instrument, then you would realize how short
mid-fi equipment falls in reproducing the difference in tone, timbre,
etc. of various fine instruments.
Barry
PS: How come you never answered my last comment about why dealers
break in speakers before the customer ever gets to hear a demo model.
Howard Ferstler
"Sandman" <sand...@gte.net> wrote:
> Howard Ferstler <fers...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
> <6qqrq2$3l2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > While I have to admit that the commentary of Sandman, below, is funny and
> > witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one has to wonder why so
> much
> > thought and effort went into something so pointless.
> No real thought at all, Howard - just popped out of my keyboard as I was
> reading your post. But thanks for the compliment - I was in a funny mood,
> you might say.
You are several cuts above my other critics.
> > Er..., apogies to Sandman for the remarks, but I could not help myself.
> > Actually, if you take the time to read my comments, without paying
> attention
> > to Mr. Sandman's slice-and-skewer interjections, I think they jell pretty
> > good.
> "Slice-and-skewer"! I like that! Nice ring to it. Jolly jelly good!
Yeah, I have my creative moments, too.
(snip)
> > For one thing, we
> > have no comments from him concerning why he does or does not believe that
> > speakers, conventional or otherwise, require a break-in period. Will we
> get
> > some hard data from him, or are all his opinions on the subject simply
> going
> > to be more of the "I heard it; I believe it" variety? I wait, with bated
> > breath.
> I have no opinion on the subject, actually, and could care less. I was
> just trying to inject a little light-hearted humor. The entire point of my
> jestful jousting was that you wrote paragraph after paragraph in response
> to a very specific request for very specific information and never once
> answered the question. Now do you get it?
Yeah, I guess I get it. However, I posted my reasons for not naming names.
When exemplifying improper behavior, it is only fare to name all the culprits
and I will admit that I only have the ability to name a far smaller number
than the total. The break-in ploy is probably more popular with equipment
retailers than with manufacturers.
I think someone recently noted in a post (the theme of which was that Tom
Nousaine and I were not the only ones who feel the way we do about speaker
break in) that quite a few knowledgeable individuals: Pierce, Dunlavy,
Kantor, etc., do not take speaker break in all that seriously. I would not
be in a position to know if those guys, who sure as hell ought to know,
actually feel that way, but it seems plausible.
Howard Ferstler
TorResist
>> Anyway, I rather like the so-called "mid-fi" sound, myself. Sounds more
>> realistic than a lot of high-end "hi-fi."
"Ladies and Gentlemen! Children of All Ages! Hurry hurry hurry! Right under the
big top we have a wonder for the ages: A man who talks out of his mouth and out
of his ass at the same time!"
Oh, How-weird? Can you please explain how you can both prefer "mid-fi" sound as
more realistic and then put down people who prefer vinyl as more persuasive and
realistic? ... Uh... never mind... Don't bother. I'm sure the answer will come
out of both northern and southern orifices at the same time too.
tor
Howard Ferstler
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >
> > In article <6qqun5$h1n$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>,
> > "The Devil" <DemonScript@[SPAMOFF]dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> > > Howard Ferstler wrote
> > >
> > > >witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one has to wonder why so
much
> > > >thought and effort went into something so pointless.
> > >
> > I know this marks me as an rao-lingo ignoramus, but what do the above
acronyms
> > mean? I believe I have just been insulted.
> >
> > Howard Ferstler
> Howard:
> You do not know what a twat is? Did you grow up on earth? If you still
> haven't figured it out, think of another word for an animal that goes
> meow. It is slang for a female's genital organ. Does that help?
> Zip
Now I will know where to go when I need dirty statements deciphered. Well,
maybe, because you still did not explain the first term. Possibly that acronym
does not stand for something dirty enough.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
torr...@aol.com (TorResist) wrote:
> Howie writes:
> >While I have to admit that the commentary of Sandman, below, is funny and
> >>witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one has to wonder why so much
> >>thought and effort went into something so >pointless.
> Ya know what, How-weird? Save this post of yours. The end of it will make a
> GREAT tombstone epitaph for you:
>
> "Here lies Dame How-weird Ferstler
> Of her life, we can say:
> One has to wonder why so much
> hought and effort went into something so pointless.
>
> Now How-weird? Wouldya please take everyone's advice and hold yourself out as
> an expert in something like Lincoln Logs, or Beanie Babys? You'll be more
> credible that way.
> tor
> One has to wonder wht so muc
I do not get it. The above material was clealy written by someone who is not
meticulous, if we assume that they are able spell and write, and yet possibly
was composed by an individual who is quite simply borderline illiterate.
Nevertheless, Mr. Tor claims to have a two-channel sound system that retails
for $130,000. How could someone so inept with words have a job that earns
him enough to purchase such a sound system? Also, the commentary comes
across as having been written by a juvenile. Could a juvenile afford a sound
system that expensive?
I am getting suspicious. Mr. Tor may be giving something away by his writing
style. Mr. Devil/Briggs has already done that.
Howard Ferstler
brot...@pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > Anyway, I rather like the so-called "mid-fi" sound, myself. Sounds more
> > realistic than a lot of high-end "hi-fi."
> Howard:
>
> Thank you for fessing up to the real truth. I guess if you were an
> acoustic guitar player as well, you might tell us that you really
> prefer the sound of mid-fi $400 Takamine/Fender/(insert name here)
> over a $3500+ Olson or Santa Cruz. If you have ever, in fact, heard
> the sound of a good instrument, then you would realize how short
> mid-fi equipment falls in reproducing the difference in tone, timbre,
> etc. of various fine instruments.
>
> Barry
Nope. Never fooled with them. Started out as a classical music junky about
35 years ago, and have since picked up an appreciation of jazz, rock, and
even country. Yes, I like "mid fi." Moderation in all things, I say. Well,
Aristotle said it first.
> PS: How come you never answered my last comment about why dealers
> break in speakers before the customer ever gets to hear a demo model.
Well, to tell the truth, I do not remember seeing it. There are hundreds of
posts out there dealing with my commentaries, and I miss some of them.
Some dealers may think they are breaking in speakers, but nothing like that is
really happening. Some may even believe in what they are doing.
Howard Ferstler
torr...@aol.com (TorResist) wrote:
> >Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >> Anyway, I rather like the so-called "mid-fi" sound, myself. Sounds more
> >> realistic than a lot of high-end "hi-fi."
> "Ladies and Gentlemen! Children of All Ages! Hurry hurry hurry! Right under
the
> big top we have a wonder for the ages: A man who talks out of his mouth and
out
> of his ass at the same time!"
>
> Oh, How-weird? Can you please explain how you can both prefer "mid-fi" sound
as
> more realistic and then put down people who prefer vinyl as more persuasive
and
> realistic? ... Uh... never mind... Don't bother. I'm sure the answer will
come
> out of both northern and southern orifices at the same time too.
> tor
Well, LP records are low-fi. I do not like low-fi.
Hi-fi, as interpreted by the high end, involves super expensive (sometimes
tube) amps, LP turntables, Shakti stones, green ink, expensive CD transports
and DAC's, exotic and expensive wire and cables, tuning dots, room tunes, and
a pair of ten-grand minispeakers with no deep bass. Super-expensive
subwoofers are sometimes allowed, although high-pass filtering will remain
suspect.
Mid-fi means sensibly priced subwoofers, sanely priced main speakers, Lexicon
or Yamaha grade surround processors, affordable amplifiers surround speakers,
a center channel, DVD players, one-piece CD players (by outfits like Sony,
Technics, Pioneer, or NAD), equalizers, and TV sets. I prefer mid-fi.
The Devil
>In article <6qqun5$h1n$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>,
> "The Devil" <DemonScript@[SPAMOFF]dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> Howard Ferstler wrote
>>
>> >While I have to admit that the commentary of Sandman, below, is funny and
>> >witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one has to wonder why so much
>> >thought and effort went into something so pointless.
>>
>> ROTFLMFAO! You TWAT, Howard!
>
>I know this marks me as an rao-lingo ignoramus, but what do the above acronyms
>mean? I believe I have just been insulted.
ROTFLMFAO! Oh, Howard, don't you know *anything*?
You're such a filatrenty, aren't you?
Jester
Howard Ferstler wrote in message <6qsmhp$49i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Now I will know where to go when I need dirty statements deciphered. Well,
>maybe, because you still did not explain the first term. Possibly that
acronym
>does not stand for something dirty enough.
>
>Howard Ferstler
I believe I have it deciphered.
ROTFLMFAO = Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Fucking Ass Off.
Sincerely,
Jester
George M. Middius
>> Now How-weird? Wouldya please take everyone's advice and
>> hold yourself out as an expert in something like Lincoln Logs,
>> or Beanie Babys? You'll be more credible that way.
>I do not get it. The above material was clealy written by someone who is not
>meticulous, if we assume that they are able spell and write, and yet possibly
>was composed by an individual who is quite simply borderline illiterate.
Howie, why don't you pick on me the way you do
Tor? If it will motivate you, the "retail" value
of all of my stuff together is about $45,000. Now
do you hate me?
>Nevertheless, Mr. Tor claims to have a two-channel sound system that retails
>for $130,000. How could someone so inept with words have a job that earns
>him enough to purchase such a sound system? Also, the commentary comes
>across as having been written by a juvenile. Could a juvenile afford a sound
>system that expensive?
Could you have paid the vanity publishers to get
your "books" into print?
>I am getting suspicious. Mr. Tor may be giving something away by his writing
>style. Mr. Devil/Briggs has already done that.
Would you like us to call you "Mr. Howard"?
Curtis Leeds
> Well, LP records are low-fi. I do not like low-fi.
Good LPs on a good playback system can be v-e-r-y hi-fi,
Howard; that's true even if you've never heard such a
system.
> Hi-fi, as interpreted by the high end, involves super expensive (sometimes
> tube) amps, LP turntables, Shakti stones, green ink, expensive CD transports
> and DAC's, exotic and expensive wire and cables, tuning dots, room tunes, and
> a pair of ten-grand minispeakers with no deep bass. Super-expensive
> subwoofers are sometimes allowed, although high-pass filtering will remain
> suspect.
No. That's the high-end as interpreted by you Howard. It's a
straw man argument, because no one else accepts your
definition.
--
***************************************************
cle...@idt.net "I stood unwound beneath the skies
And clouds unbound by laws.
The cryin' rain like a trumpet sang
And asked for no applause." (Bob Dylan)
***************************************************
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
>
> In article <35D1A1...@sunshinestereo.com>,
> "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <6qqun5$h1n$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>,
> > > "The Devil" <DemonScript@[SPAMOFF]dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> > > > Howard Ferstler wrote
> > > >
> > > > >While I have to admit that the commentary of Sandman, below, is funny and
> > > > >witty and obviously required a lot of thought, one has to wonder why so
> much
> > > > >thought and effort went into something so pointless.
> > > >
> > > > ROTFLMFAO! You TWAT, Howard!
>
> > > I know this marks me as an rao-lingo ignoramus, but what do the above
> acronyms
> > > mean? I believe I have just been insulted.
> > >
>
> > Howard:
> > You do not know what a twat is? Did you grow up on earth? If you still
> > haven't figured it out, think of another word for an animal that goes
> > meow. It is slang for a female's genital organ. Does that help?
> > Zip
>
> maybe, because you still did not explain the first term. Possibly that acronym
> does not stand for something dirty enough.
>
> Howard Ferstler
Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off.
Does that help?
Cheers
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://www.sunshinestereo.com
Tel: 305-757-9358 Fax: 305-757-1367
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores FL 33138
PASS Labs NOVA Audio EAD Miranda CODA Audible Illusions CEC
Camelot Technology Audio Logic Parasound Kinergetics Cabasse
Chiro Benz Micro Gallo Acoustics Dunlavy Audio NEAR NHT Jadis
Niles Zenith INTEQ Crystal Vision Straightwire Mordaunt Short ESP
Rega Vans Evers Cleanlines Monster Cable ENTECH Arcane Audio
Sunshine Stereo encourages all audiophiles to support their local
dealers. If you do not have a local dealer, we will gladly assist
you with all your audio and video needs! *** ENJOY THE MUSIC! ***
The Devil
>I do not get it. The above material was clealy [sic] written by someone
>who is not meticulous, if we assume that they are able spell and
>write [sic], and yet possibly was composed by an individual who is quite
>simply borderline illiterate [sic].
Good going, Howie. An utterly meaningless, directionless sentence, with
unrelated clauses a plenty, contradictions a plenty, and shitiness a plenty.
>Nevertheless, Mr. Tor [sic] claims to have a two-channel sound system
>that retails for $130,000. How could someone so inept with words have a
>job that earns him enough to purchase such a sound system? Also, the
>commentary comes across as having been written by a juvenile. Could a
>juvenile afford a sound system that expensive?
I thought Tor was a furniture dealer. If he has his own business and it
is successful, I would imagine he's going to have a lot more money
than a miserable little vanity librarian, Howie.
Tor - if Howie's nice to you, would you consider giving him a loan for
his next vanity book? That's what this bumbling mess of sentences is
really about. He's trying to charm you with his talent. Thes sentences
are Howie's book synopsis and blurb.
>I am getting suspicious. Mr. Tor may be giving something away by his
>writing style. Mr. Devil/Briggs has already done that.
Howie, unless it's got a subwoofer glued on it, you don't *get* it, do you?
Are you still trying to work out the acronym 'dildo' from my 'Howie's
HT notes' post?